View Full Version : Hello, I'm Right Wing. Here's why-->
flickad
03-31-2011, 04:43 AM
^^
As an Aussie, I have to tell you you're wrong on internet censorship - it's been shelved for the time being, but does remain a threat.
Hopper
03-31-2011, 06:27 AM
You're the one who is clueless if you think that allowing Americans to have guns is somehow preventing our government from forming a dictatorship. Again, please name one time when the 2nd Amendment has been used to protect the American people from the government.
The American Revolution, which was the reason the second amendment was written
Hopper
03-31-2011, 06:31 AM
How do the the people in Great Britain, Japan, and Australia keep their freedom? They have gun control laws in those countries.
They are losing their freedoms, and they are more than half way there. Gun control itself is one less freedom.
Hopper
03-31-2011, 06:35 AM
These threads are for members to air their views and are not debate threads and/or forums for others to pick those views apart.
I can tell.
You can debate elsewhere but stick to airing your own opinions here as opposed to jumping on those of others.
In another thread, I made a single passing criticism of feminism, referring to a well-documented historical fact which even feminists with long memories wouldn't deny, and you and some others jumped on me and tried to force feminism down my throat, pretending it is the only possible enlightened view. I was forced to defend my opinion for many pages.
ArmySGT.
03-31-2011, 07:58 PM
^^
As an Aussie, I have to tell you you're wrong on internet censorship - it's been shelved for the time being, but does remain a threat.
The fact that it even came up is telling, there are those from either side of the isle that want to be puppet masters.
We are not defending our Bill of rights enough. Should not be giving ground on any part of it. The Right should be guarding the First as hard as the Second, neither should give on the Fourth even on little issues that hurt the other side.
flickad
04-01-2011, 07:00 AM
I can tell.
In another thread, I made a single passing criticism of feminism, referring to a well-documented historical fact which even feminists with long memories wouldn't deny, and you and some others jumped on me and tried to force feminism down my throat, pretending it is the only possible enlightened view. I was forced to defend my opinion for many pages.
I am talking about the right wing, left wing and anarchist threads, not threads in general on this site. Other threads here were the 'elsewhere' of which I spoke. See the OP's post as to this point.
jack0177057
04-01-2011, 10:29 AM
On the 2nd Amendment (right to bear arms) -
I am no 2nd Amendment scholar, but the second amendment is very interesting in that: (1) what was the intent of the founding fathers, and (2) is that intent relevant today?
In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of the following purposes:
(1) deterring undemocratic government;
(2) repelling invasion;
(3) suppressing insurrection;
(4) facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
(5) participating in law enforcement; and
(6) enabling the people to organize a militia system.
Which of these considerations they (individually, as representatives of their states, and collectively as members of Congress - who hardly ever agreed on anything) thought were most important has been disputed by scholars ever since.
You can argue forever about this, but more importantly - How significant is the intent of the founding fathers?
Under "strict constructionism" of the Constitution, the original intent of the founding fathers is determinative in enforcing constitutional rights.
Surprisingly, there is only one justice on the Supreme Court who espouses strict constructionism, Justice Anthony Scalia.
The rest generally espouse the idea that the Constitution is a "breathing" and "living" document, i.e., that it evolves with time. Therefore, the intent of the founding fathers becomes largely irrelevant. (Original intent is still discussed in Supreme Court opinions, but, for the most part, cases are not decided based on what the founding fathers intended).
Remember, the founding fathers thought that slaves, women and children were the property of white males and that homosexuality was criminal, unGodly and obscene, etc. A very LARGE part of the U.S. population, e.g., slaves, blacks, foreigners, women and children were not even included in the protection of the U.S. Constitution.
The fate of the 2nd Amendment lies not with what was the original intent of the founding fathers, but with what the justices on the Supreme Court consider to be the "evolution" of the 2nd Amendment in modern times. If liberal justices ever take control of the Supreme Court, you might see the 2nd Amendment seriously eroded on the basis that most of the original concerns of the founding fathers no longer apply, i.e., because militias are no longer necessary, we face no threat from our government (though some would disagree) and any foreign invasion would be defended by U.S. military forces.
Rookie2010
04-01-2011, 10:37 AM
Here's one from the Economist:
http://media.economist.com/images/19990206/cas510.gif
The Taliban controlled most of the country and probably would have taken over the rest by now, if we had not overthrown them.
LOL I hope this is a joke, or am I color blind? The Taliban controls most of the country ATM, maybe stop watching the news and reading bullshit.
This war is far from even beginning, Maybe if you talked to intelligent people who were actually on the ground out there you would know more, It is a fucked up situation out there right now.
We don't control shit out there that matters. trust me once you leave Kabul you will see what it really is out there.
Kabul and Afghanistan are basically two different countries
We are not any closer to 'defeating' the Taliban than we were 10 years ago the first time we "took" Kandahar
To say that the Taliban only holds the North-East section near Pakistan is hilarious
Most of the enemy fighters there are not even Taliban.. That's just what we call them to make it clear who the enemy is, most are just pashtun fighthers from Pakistan (there is no such thing as a border between afghanistan and pakistan, they are basically one country right now, the Pakistani goverment cannot do shit about Tribal activity helping our enemies in it's western section) and are coming over in droves daily. our "enemy" out there is larger than you can comprehend and is growing very rapidly.
This is not a war we can win without the serious help we need from the Pakistani government which we will most likely never get.
If we really want to accomplish something it's going to take atleast another 10+ years just to get started.
trust me we will be there longer than you think and if we pull out for political reasons we are fucked, The AA can't do shit and won't be ready for a LONG TIME
Kellydancer
04-01-2011, 12:18 PM
Since several brought up the Second Amendment I will add this: the cities with the strictest gun control tend to have high gun violence rates. Think about this, Chicago doesn't allow guns at all courtesy of the left wing extremists but has very high violence. Why is this? because criminals can still get guns but law abiding citizens can not.
I personally don't like guns but feel law citizens without mental issues and criminal records should be allowed to own guns. When people aren't allowed to own guns, the criminals are the ones who win.
eagle2
04-01-2011, 05:04 PM
New York City has very strict gun control laws and also probably has the lowest murder rate of any major city in the US.
Since several brought up the Second Amendment I will add this: the cities with the strictest gun control tend to have high gun violence rates.
That's just not true.
Kellydancer
04-01-2011, 09:03 PM
That's just not true.
It's true in Chicago, look it up. Handguns are illegal yet gang bangers kill many people. I believe people should have the right to defend themselves. If I still lived where I grew up I would own a gun even if illegal and if a gangbanger broke into my house I wouldn't hesitate to kill him.
ArmySGT.
04-01-2011, 11:00 PM
That's just not true.
By what would you like to measure?
To what agenda would you like the facts skewed?
Unarmed people are the preferred target of armed people all the time.
Hopper
04-02-2011, 04:02 AM
On the 2nd Amendment (right to bear arms) -
I am no 2nd Amendment scholar, but the second amendment is very interesting in that: (1) what was the intent of the founding fathers, and (2) is that intent relevant today?
In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of the following purposes:
(1) deterring undemocratic government;
(2) repelling invasion;
(3) suppressing insurrection;
(4) facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
(5) participating in law enforcement; and
(6) enabling the people to organize a militia system.
All of those are reasons but the important reason the founders wanted the right to bear arms to be protected was as a safeguard against tyranny.
Which of these considerations they (individually, as representatives of their states, and collectively as members of Congress - who hardly ever agreed on anything) thought were most important has been disputed by scholars ever since.
Would you take the word of both a President and founder of the United States?
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-Thomas Jefferson
You can argue forever about this, but more importantly - How significant is the intent of the founding fathers?
Under "strict constructionism" of the Constitution, the original intent of the founding fathers is determinative in enforcing constitutional rights.
Surprisingly, there is only one justice on the Supreme Court who espouses strict constructionism, Justice Anthony Scalia.
The rest generally espouse the idea that the Constitution is a "breathing" and "living" document, i.e., that it evolves with time. Therefore, the intent of the founding fathers becomes largely irrelevant. (Original intent is still discussed in Supreme Court opinions, but, for the most part, cases are not decided based on what the founding fathers intended).
By the "living document" doctrine not can the law be interpreted independently of it's original intent, but the law itself may be revised or abolished. The idea of this doctrine is that laws are merely reflections of the opinions of the day (at least the opinions which "count" - i.e, those with the real power to make laws) and evolve with the rest of society. Note that this is not the same thing as laws changing with real advances in sound principles - opinions are not necessarily based on sound in principles. The notion that laws should change according to opinions is itself not baaed on real principle. I know I don't want my life being decided by other people's convictions.
Oliver Wendell Homes Jr. was a lifelong proponent of this doctrine.
Remember, the founding fathers thought that slaves, women and children were the property of white males and that homosexuality was criminal, unGodly and obscene, etc.
The founders did not approve of slavery, their failure to abolish it was a compromise and a concession for the sake of getting New England, which ran a lucrative slave trade, to join the Confederacy. Other colonies in the Confederacy also allowed slavery, and the founders at this time did not want to cause a split, there being a war against England going on and all. The federal governemtn was after all just that: a federal government with limits on it's power to interfere with state laws.
The founders often expressed disapproval of slavery and Washington did try to emancipate his slaves when laws forbidding it were repealed but there remained financial obstacles. He sought to circumvent the problem by other means, such as setting aside some of his land to be willed to his slaves upon his or his wife's death.
A very LARGE part of the U.S. population, e.g., slaves, blacks, foreigners, women and children were not even included in the protection of the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitution gives all citizens the same basic freedoms and the protection of their liberties. Therefore it does not need to specify every kind of citizen.
The fate of the 2nd Amendment lies not with what was the original intent of the founding fathers, but with what the justices on the Supreme Court consider to be the "evolution" of the 2nd Amendment in modern times. If liberal justices ever take control of the Supreme Court, you might see the 2nd Amendment seriously eroded on the basis that most of the original concerns of the founding fathers no longer apply, i.e., because militias are no longer necessary, we face no threat from our government (though some would disagree) and any foreign invasion would be defended by U.S. military forces.
Er, take away the right to resist, and we might see some threats from the government. In many ways it already is a threat and in numerous isolated cases has directly oppressed people.
Hopper
04-02-2011, 04:04 AM
Great Britain and Japan have strict gun control laws and the people there have as much freedom as we do in the US.
Really, that much? Guess I may as well stay then.
No it isn't. The US was founded as a democracy. Our government is elected by the people. At the time, certain people were excluded, but since then, the right has been greatly extended.
The United States IS a democracy. Our laws are made by elected representatives. That is a democracy.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy
democracy - government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Note that in that definition it says power is vested in the people. The whole idea of the original U.S. system is that the government (exercised by the people or not) is not supposed to have power over the people. Individuals are supposed to be free of government control. By itself, the fact that laws are made by elected representatives does not limit the number, type and strictness of those laws.
No, you are making up your own definition of "democracy". Our leaders are elected by the people, which makes us a democracy.
It's true that one type of democracy is elected, representative government. But although U.S. government representatives are elected, that is still not the correct term describing the U.S. system, which is "constitutional republic, with limited government". Democratic election of representatives is just a PART of that system - it is not the important feature of it. The fact that representatives in government are elected does not limit their power - they can have as much power as the people vote to give them.
Whatever definition of democracy you take, the reason I disagree with defining the U.S. system as a democracy is that that is not it's important feature. The important feature of the U.S. system is the limitation of the government's power to the protection of the liberty of individuals. The term "democracy" does not include this - a democracy does not necessarily at all require the government to be limited to this role. It only basic thing democracy requires is that everybody gets a vote on what the government may do or not do. So if everybody votes that homosexuals should be imprisoned, the government may pass a law forbidding homosexuality. It's democratic, but not free. Therefore the habitual reference to the U.S. system of government obscures it's most important feature and leaves the way open to a shift toward more restrictions on freedoms.
No it doesn't. There are many democracies that are not dictatorships.
I said that democracy leads to dictatorship, and that is where all those democracies are heading.
It's true in Chicago, look it up. Handguns are illegal yet gang bangers kill many people. I believe people should have the right to defend themselves. If I still lived where I grew up I would own a gun even if illegal and if a gangbanger broke into my house I wouldn't hesitate to kill him.
"It's true in Chicago" does not make your statement true.
Hopper
04-02-2011, 08:00 AM
New York City has very strict gun control laws and also probably has the lowest murder rate of any major city in the US.
Murderers don't obey laws.
Hopper
04-02-2011, 08:11 AM
since several brought up the second amendment i will add this: The cities with the strictest gun control tend to have high gun violence rates.
that's just not true.
it's true in chicago,
"it's true in chicago" does not make your statement true.
lol wtf?
Kellydancer
04-02-2011, 11:25 AM
"It's true in Chicago" does not make your statement true.
By the same token doesn't mean it's false either. Just look at the high rates of murder and look at who's doing it, which is many illegal gun owners like gangs. Do you like the idea that gangbangers can (and do) get guns but law abiding citizens can't? I don't. In fact neither does the one guy who brought the case to the Supreme Court. He's African American, and a liberal Democrat. Far from a nut job, he just wants to right to own guns to protect his house. He should have the right to protect his home from gangbangers. Or do you feel he doesn't deserve to have guns (thereby not allowing the 2nd Amendment)but gangbangers do? Are you one of those people who feel gangbangers are just misunderstood souls who had it rough? While that may be the case it still doesn't make it right that they can have guns (illegally) while a law abiding citizen can't.
You are magnitudes more likely to end up shot by your own gun than having "gangbangers" break into your house and murder you. Having a gun does not in any way shape or form make you safer. You know whos likely to end up shot by gangbangers? other gangbangers, and like you said they already got guns.
Let's forget about whether an armed citizenry can take on a govt. sponsored army for a while.
What about the issue of: if you want to own a gun, then it's your own business.
For me, the gun control issue is as simple as that.
I'm not a conservative or libertarian, but I don't understand why leftists seem to be so enamored with protecting the individual freedom of people to have any sort of sex they want with whoever they want (as long as the other person is willing), to do drugs, etc. on the grounds that it's a person's own business and personal choice but at the same time want to take away a person's choice to own a firearm.
I'm not a gun nut either (don't even own a gun) so it has nothing to do with that.
Redwolf
04-02-2011, 04:50 PM
You are magnitudes more likely to end up shot by your own gun than having "gangbangers" break into your house and murder you. Having a gun does not in any way shape or form make you safer. You know whos likely to end up shot by gangbangers? other gangbangers, and like you said they already got guns.
Really? Do believe these talking points? Do you really? Any evidence?
Are you sure that you do not want to take back the line, "Having a gun does not in any way shape or form make you safer"? We'll let you do so.
80 Million gun owners in the US, hardly anyone keeps just one. If you put together every Member of the Army, Navy, Airforce, Marine Corps, and threw in the Reserves plus the National Guard with the Coast Guard just for old times sake........ You have about 5 million in Uniform. 10% of a modern military force is fighters.
I'll take an 80 to 5 force ration in my favor. Sun Tzu and Western Military Authors agree that 3-1 is good enough to attack with.
Don't fight their strengths attack their weaknesses.
The 3 to 1 thing you are talking about only applies if the numerically superior force makes a concentrated attacked on the other side.
In a battle between a US citizen insurgency, you're not going to have those 80 million gun owners running across a battlefield to fight every gathered member of the US armed forces.
I'd have a fully trained, fully equipped army then a ragtag group of unorganized armed civilians that has no central command and could not mount any sort of coordinated offense.
Just look at what is happening in Libya right now. Every time the govt rolls out the heavy machinery the rebels are forced to retreat despite being more numerous and supposedly having the support of the common man. Can you imagine what would happen if the Libyan army had access to the war machines that the US armed forces do?
Really? Do believe these talking points? Do you really? Any evidence?
Are you sure that you do not want to take back the line, "Having a gun does not in any way shape or form make you safer"? We'll let you do so.
It actually puts you in lots more danger. Here (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html) you go. Not that i expect facts to sway anybodies opinion in the right wing thread but it seems incredibly obvious to anyone with half a brain that more guns = more danger. Two armed idiots are more dangerous than one.
Kellydancer
04-02-2011, 05:09 PM
But Trem why would you assume someone with a gun doesn't know how to use it? I know how to use a gun and though I don't own one I know gun safety. However, I'd rather see a law abiding citizen kill a thug than a thug kill a productive member of society.
I am not rightwing at all, I just don't get why law abiding systems shouldn't have the right to protect themselves. I am not talking allowing everyone to own one and certain restrictions (for instance criminals).
I'm not assuming anything Kelly, people who own guns are in more danger than those who don't. They are also a bigger danger to others. The chances of some gang banger breaking into your house and killing you are much much lower than the chances of an accident happening if you own a gun. Even in areas with a high rate of crime.
Assuming that study is true, why should an adult of sound mind still not be allowed to carry a gun? People who smoke know what they are getting into but we as a society still allow people to make that decision for themselves.
Hopper
04-02-2011, 10:15 PM
You are magnitudes more likely to end up shot by your own gun than having "gangbangers" break into your house and murder you. Having a gun does not in any way shape or form make you safer. You know whos likely to end up shot by gangbangers? other gangbangers, and like you said they already got guns.
Maybe in your neighborhood but not in those on the gangbangers' turf. Crime gangs commit crimes, they don't just fight amongst themselves the whole time. When they commit crimes against lawful citizens, like armed rob, break and enter, home invasion, they use guns. Sometimes lawful citizens are about when gangbangers are shooting each other. That's right, they already have guns, despite the gun laws. We don't.
Hopper
04-02-2011, 10:25 PM
The 3 to 1 thing you are talking about only applies if the numerically superior force makes a concentrated attacked on the other side.
In a battle between a US citizen insurgency, you're not going to have those 80 million gun owners running across a battlefield to fight every gathered member of the US armed forces.
I'd have a fully trained, fully equipped army then a ragtag group of unorganized armed civilians that has no central command and could not mount any sort of coordinated offense.
Just look at what is happening in Libya right now. Every time the govt rolls out the heavy machinery the rebels are forced to retreat despite being more numerous and supposedly having the support of the common man. Can you imagine what would happen if the Libyan army had access to the war machines that the US armed forces do?
The situation they are assuming is the government taking control of the entire country by military force or the people taking the government back from a dictator by force. The state military might manage to clean up a small section of the opposition in parts of the country but it would run out of personnel way before it could make it all around the country to finish the job. OTOH if the military tried to tie down the whole country in one go it would be spread too thin.
"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."
- Abraham Lincoln
When Lincoln said this, in 1838, most Americans owned guns. I doubt Lincoln meant that the U.S. military alone would hold off a foreign military that size.
Hopper
04-02-2011, 10:48 PM
It actually puts you in lots more danger. Here (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html) you go. Not that i expect facts to sway anybodies opinion in the right wing thread but it seems incredibly obvious to anyone with half a brain that more guns = more danger. Two armed idiots are more dangerous than one.
This is about where somebody should be telling you to stay out of the "right-wing" thread and stop arguing with other people in all three threads.
From that article you gave a link to:
Supporters of the Second Amendment shouldn't worry that the right to bear arms is under threat, however. "We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous," Branas says. "This study is a beginning."
While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't, Branas speculates.
In other words, they are only speculating. They did not state the conclusion you are stating: "more guns = more danger". They only stated a statistic, which they don't know the reason for. Therefore the title of that article (Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot) is misleading, since it is not necessarily the carrying of the gun itself which causes the increased incidence, but may jut be the behavior of the person carrying it.
Hopper
04-02-2011, 10:52 PM
I'm not assuming anything Kelly, people who own guns are in more danger than those who don't. They are also a bigger danger to others. The chances of some gang banger breaking into your house and killing you are much much lower than the chances of an accident happening if you own a gun. Even in areas with a high rate of crime.
Fatal accidents can occur with many other things - cars, power tools, industrial machinery, matches. electricity etc. The only safe place is in the arms of Jesus; outside of that there are only varying degrees of threat or risk.
Hopper
04-03-2011, 04:17 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz3kX4X9KvQ
Fully strapped, always packed.
jack0177057
04-04-2011, 06:38 PM
I'm not assuming anything Kelly, people who own guns are in more danger than those who don't. They are also a bigger danger to others. The chances of some gang banger breaking into your house and killing you are much much lower than the chances of an accident happening if you own a gun. Even in areas with a high rate of crime.
A lot of things are lethally dangerous when undertaken by an idiot. Idiot drunk driver kill thousands of people a year. Some idiots cause fatal crashes just by excessive speed, running a red light, etc. Should we outlaw cars (trucks, personal aircrafts, etc.) for everbody, to keep them out of the hands of idiots? What about power tools? - An idiot can do a lot of damage with powertools.
Idiots whose occupation requires them to operate machinery or build things (e.g., buildings, bridges, etc.) can also do great harm to innocent people.
You're more likely to die from food poisoning, salmonella or hepatitis because some idiot cook took a dump and forgot to wash his hands before preparing your food at a restaurant than you are from getting shot by an idiot who doesn't know how to use a gun. (I have no actual statistics to back this up, but I suspect this is the case.)
You cannot deprive everyone of their ability to defend themselves and their families, just because some idiots create potential danger for people. A better approach is to create a system for screening idiots and prefenting them from owning a gun.
I'm all in favor of a system of licensing (like getting a driver's license, but stricter) that requires a criminal records, pschological record, written test and firing-range test to make sure the applicant has a minimum level of intelligence, sanity, anger control and common sense.
eagle2
04-04-2011, 10:37 PM
Really, that much? Guess I may as well stay then.
Note that in that definition it says power is vested in the people. The whole idea of the original U.S. system is that the government (exercised by the people or not) is not supposed to have power over the people. Individuals are supposed to be free of government control. By itself, the fact that laws are made by elected representatives does not limit the number, type and strictness of those laws.
No, the intent of the US system was obviously to let the people decide, or at least the people allowed to vote, to decide how our country should be run, through their elected representatives. There were certain laws that they thought were important enough to be put into the Constitution, where it would take two thirds of elected representatives and two thirds of the states to pass, instead of a majority. The American people can pass any law they want, as long as there are enough people to support it. The Constitution can be amended for any reason, if there is enough support for it. In 1919, the American people decided, through their elected officials, that Americans should not be allowed to drink liquor, so it became illegal for Americans to buy, sell or consume liquor. In 1933, the American people decided that it was okay to buy, sell, or consume liquor, so the law was repealed.
It's true that one type of democracy is elected, representative government. But although U.S. government representatives are elected, that is still not the correct term describing the U.S. system, which is "constitutional republic, with limited government". Democratic election of representatives is just a PART of that system - it is not the important feature of it. The fact that representatives in government are elected does not limit their power - they can have as much power as the people vote to give them.
No, there is nothing in our system that says we must have limited government. That is just something conservatives say because they want to dictate how our country should be run. It's for the American people to decide how much or how little government we have. If there are enough American people that want the government to stop Americans from drinking liquor, Americans can amend the Constitution to require the government to do this, and have already done so in the past.
Whatever definition of democracy you take, the reason I disagree with defining the U.S. system as a democracy is that that is not it's important feature. The important feature of the U.S. system is the limitation of the government's power to the protection of the liberty of individuals. The term "democracy" does not include this - a democracy does not necessarily at all require the government to be limited to this role. It only basic thing democracy requires is that everybody gets a vote on what the government may do or not do. So if everybody votes that homosexuals should be imprisoned, the government may pass a law forbidding homosexuality. It's democratic, but not free. Therefore the habitual reference to the U.S. system of government obscures it's most important feature and leaves the way open to a shift toward more restrictions on freedoms.
Democracy is the most important feature of our government. Practically everything in this country is decided by democratically elected officials, or people appointed by democratically elected officials. Elected officials can change our Constitution. At one time in this country, homosexuality was illegal in many states, and people were imprisoned for it.
I said that democracy leads to dictatorship, and that is where all those democracies are heading.
The evidence contradicts you. The US has been a democracy for over 200 years and our freedoms have greatly increased, especially if you're not a white male Christian. There is a certain segment of our country that doesn't like the fact that white male Christians are no longer privileged, and can no longer impose their views/beliefs on everyone else, but thankfully, these people are in a minority and their numbers are getting smaller.
eagle2
04-04-2011, 10:40 PM
By the same token doesn't mean it's false either. Just look at the high rates of murder and look at who's doing it, which is many illegal gun owners like gangs. Do you like the idea that gangbangers can (and do) get guns but law abiding citizens can't? I don't.
A lot of gangbangers get their guns from "law abiding citizens".
eagle2
04-04-2011, 10:55 PM
80 Million gun owners in the US, hardly anyone keeps just one. If you put together every Member of the Army, Navy, Airforce, Marine Corps, and threw in the Reserves plus the National Guard with the Coast Guard just for old times sake........ You have about 5 million in Uniform. 10% of a modern military force is fighters.
I'll take an 80 to 5 force ration in my favor. Sun Tzu and Western Military Authors agree that 3-1 is good enough to attack with.
Don't fight their strengths attack their weaknesses.
You're assuming the 80 million gun owners will be on one side and government forces will be on the other. Chances are, it won't work out that way. You don't know how many of those 80 million gun owners will be on the side of the government. There have been plenty of times when people in this country have been brutally oppressed, and the right to own guns did not prevent it. Look at the plight of African Americans in this country over the past 200 years. The right to own guns did not prevent the enslavement of millions of African Americans. There were armed slave uprisings that were suppressed by the white majority. It was only when the federal government mobilized its forces, that slavery was ended. African Americans were then brutally oppressed for another 100 years under segregation laws in the South. It was only when the federal government decided to stop this, that segregation ended.
jester214
04-04-2011, 11:40 PM
Oh look, the entire point of the thread sailed over Eagle's head! What a shock ::)
Hopper
04-05-2011, 04:05 AM
No, the intent of the US system was obviously to let the people decide, or at least the people allowed to vote, to decide how our country should be run, through their elected representatives. There were certain laws that they thought were important enough to be put into the Constitution, where it would take two thirds of elected representatives and two thirds of the states to pass, instead of a majority. The American people can pass any law they want, as long as there are enough people to support it. The Constitution can be amended for any reason, if there is enough support for it. In 1919, the American people decided, through their elected officials, that Americans should not be allowed to drink liquor, so it became illegal for Americans to buy, sell or consume liquor. In 1933, the American people decided that it was okay to buy, sell, or consume liquor, so the law was repealed.
Exactly - an example of what I meant. Because most Americans approved of prohibition of alcohol, Americans who disagreed or who wanted to drink were not allowed to. This was a restriction upon individual liberty, which is supposed to be what the United States is all about. But since you think democracy is the most important feature of the U.S. system, individual liberty is out. Democracy excludes liberty. And note that the prohibition was not even a sensible idea, since Americans later realized their mistake and changed their minds. Individual liberty was not even restricted for any good reason.
No, there is nothing in our system that says we must have limited government. That is just something conservatives say because they want to dictate how our country should be run. It's for the American people to decide how much or how little government we have. If there are enough American people that want the government to stop Americans from drinking liquor, Americans can amend the Constitution to require the government to do this, and have already done so in the past.
This is ridiculous reasoning. Conservatives want a free society just for the sake of deciding for everyone else what sort of system we have? Doesn't this equally mean that liberals want to "dictate" that we have a big government? The whole idea of having a limited government is that nobody does decide for anybody else. Which brings us back to democracy, which is a system in which everybody decides what everybody does, by majority vote.
If the American people decide how much government we have, then the majority is deciding for everybody else, which means that some Americans, those in the minority, don't get to decide. That's just as bad as conservatives deciding for everybody. If the majority happened to be conservatives, then in a democracy they would be deciding for everybody else, which is exactly what you want to avoid.
With a limited government, individuals decide each for themselves what they do. That is the only way for everybody to really decide: We all mind our own business and decide what to do with our own property; we stay out of other people's business and let them decide what they do with their property.
Why should some Americans be able to decide on a mad whim whether or not other Americans drink liquor?
Democracy is the most important feature of our government. Practically everything in this country is decided by democratically elected officials, or people appointed by democratically elected officials. Elected officials can change our Constitution. At one time in this country, homosexuality was illegal in many states, and people were imprisoned for it.
Then there is no reason why your democratically elected officials could not make homosexuality illegal again. That's the whole problem with democracy: Elected officials do decide everything for everybody else. Just like in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. Communist countries are democratic. They have only one party, but the officials are still elected by vote of the people. The present U.S. system is a little different - it has two parties. But political members of those parties both have the same basic interests, so it's not a big difference.
The evidence contradicts you. The US has been a democracy for over 200 years and our freedoms have greatly increased, especially if you're not a white male Christian. There is a certain segment of our country that doesn't like the fact that white male Christians are no longer privileged, and can no longer impose their views/beliefs on everyone else, but thankfully, these people are in a minority and their numbers are getting smaller.
With a limited government, which is unable to intervene in individual, private affairs, EVERYBODY is free. The whole idea of limited government is that nobody is privileged and nobody can impose their views on everybody else. Our freedoms have not increased - the government has massively increased in size and power. It controls directly or indirectly almost everything we do.
eagle2
04-06-2011, 07:30 PM
This is ridiculous reasoning. Conservatives want a free society just for the sake of deciding for everyone else what sort of system we have? Doesn't this equally mean that liberals want to "dictate" that we have a big government? The whole idea of having a limited government is that nobody does decide for anybody else. Which brings us back to democracy, which is a system in which everybody decides what everybody does, by majority vote.
The difference between the two is that conservatives insist that any laws that go against their limited government ideology are unlawful or unconstitutional. They insist that elected officials are not even allowed to pass laws that go against their ideology.
If the American people decide how much government we have, then the majority is deciding for everybody else, which means that some Americans, those in the minority, don't get to decide. That's just as bad as conservatives deciding for everybody. If the majority happened to be conservatives, then in a democracy they would be deciding for everybody else, which is exactly what you want to avoid.
There is no form of government that will please anyone, but in general, countries where the people are free to choose their government have far more freedom than in countries where the government doesn't have to answer to the people.
With a limited government, individuals decide each for themselves what they do. That is the only way for everybody to really decide: We all mind our own business and decide what to do with our own property; we stay out of other people's business and let them decide what they do with their property.
and when individuals/businesses are allowed to decide for themselves what they do, they often end up harming other individuals. If individuals/businesses are free to do what they want with their property, what's to prevent them from polluting the air other individuals breathe or the water they drink? What's to prevent them from hiring poor people, including children, to work for them in miserable conditions 60 hours a week for very little pay? There was a time when we did have limited government, and that is what happened.
Why should some Americans be able to decide on a mad whim whether or not other Americans drink liquor?
I think it's more likely for an unelected dictator to pass a bad law on a whim, than it is for 2/3 of the American people. It is also a lot more difficult to get a bad law overturned.
Then there is no reason why your democratically elected officials could not make homosexuality illegal again. That's the whole problem with democracy: Elected officials do decide everything for everybody else. Just like in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. Communist countries are democratic. They have only one party, but the officials are still elected by vote of the people. The present U.S. system is a little different - it has two parties. But political members of those parties both have the same basic interests, so it's not a big difference.
Leaders in communist countries were not elected by the people. They were appointed, and the people were forced to vote for whomever was appointed. There were no elections in Nazi Germany. Once Hitler declared himself ruler, there was no possibility of voting him out of office.
With a limited government, which is unable to intervene in individual, private affairs, EVERYBODY is free. The whole idea of limited government is that nobody is privileged and nobody can impose their views on everybody else. Our freedoms have not increased - the government has massively increased in size and power. It controls directly or indirectly almost everything we do.
Who is the one who is going to decide how limited our government should be, if it's not the people?
Our freedoms have greatly increased over the past 200 years. 200 years ago, if you had the wrong skin color, you were considered nothing more than someone's property.
Hopper
04-08-2011, 02:00 AM
The difference between the two is that conservatives insist that any laws that go against their limited government ideology are unlawful or unconstitutional. They insist that elected officials are not even allowed to pass laws that go against their ideology.
Liberals have an ideology too, one which requires that there definitely be certain legislation which intervenes in private life to ensure "social justice" and "protect human rights". Have you ever met a liberal who doesn't want the government to intervene?
Conservatives have as much right as anybody else to choose the type of government they want. Limited government is a type of government and you can't exclude it from the list of choices. In fact, the only real two basic types of government are limited government and interventionist government.
If we did have limited government, obviously the majority of people would want it and there is nothing to stop people from voting to have a different kind if they change their minds later.
Your argument is hypocritical; it is really you who is dictating what type of government we should have, not conservatives. You are really saying the people should be free to choose any kind of government they want except limited government, which leaves only one option (interventionist government) and therefore no actual choice at all. Why is it unfair for a liberal minority to have to tolerate a limited government but not unfair for a conservative minority to have to tolerate an interventionist government?
There is no form of government that will please anyone, but in general, countries where the people are free to choose their government have far more freedom than in countries where the government doesn't have to answer to the people.
The freedom of the people to collectively choose the government isn't an individual freedom at all. That's the whole point of what I am saying about democracy. If the people "freely" choose an interventionist government, they are removing freedoms, since any kind of intervention removes freedoms.
Therefore you are advocating one type of freedom (collective freedom to choose type of government) in place of another type of freedom (individual freedom to determine one's actions without outside interference). But I never said the people should not have the freedom to choose interventionist government. There is no way for conservatives to stop others from voting for that. If the majority want it, there is nothing I or any other conservative can do, simply because I would be in the minority. I am merely saying we should not choose interventionist government.
Your own idea that "the people" should be free to choose the type of government they want is nonsense, simply because it must be decided collectively and not everybody wants the same type of government. If the conservatives had a 50.01 % majority and voted for limited government, the other 49.99 % have to tolerate limited government. After that (until the next election) the minority would not be free to choose the type of government they want, short of moving to another country.
The type of government is not even necessarily decided by the majority of the whole population anyway. If there are more than two main types of government which different people in a country may like, then the vote is split three or more ways, and the "majority" could be less than half of the population. e.g. We might have 33% vote for system A, 33% vote for system B and 34% vote for system C. In this case, the majority vote is just the group with the biggest vote out of all three, but it is well below the majority of the whole population. In this case, 66% of the population can't choose the system they want. Collective or majority choice is not individual choice.
and when individuals/businesses are allowed to decide for themselves what they do, they often end up harming other individuals. If individuals/businesses are free to do what they want with their property, what's to prevent them from polluting the air other individuals breathe or the water they drink? What's to prevent them from hiring poor people, including children, to work for them in miserable conditions 60 hours a week for very little pay? There was a time when we did have limited government, and that is what happened.
First, if you believe this, then you can't say that you are for freedom, because you are saying that freedom is what leads to the greatest harm. If you oppose individual freedom, why do you care about collective freedom to choose our type of government? Your whole problem is that individual freedom and "collective freedom" (a meaningless term) are exclusive of one another. Again, this also means that you are restricting the freedom of the people to choose their type of government, since you think a limited government is unacceptable and unfair.
When did all those things you are talking about happen under a limited government? The only time and place we ever had limited government was in the U.S. up to not even the first half of the 19th century. Individuals harm others greatly even with an interventionist government. We have an interventionist government now and we see great harm being done every day. That harm is done directly and indirectly by the government. The private individuals which do the greatest harm are those who have the government on their side and they can do it much more than they would be able to without the government's help. The government has the greatest potential to do harm because it holds control over all aspects of society and everybody in society.
Government intervention is what makes us all financially poorer with it's harmful intervention in our economy, industry and business. For this reason most people are much poorer and work in worse conditions for longer hours than they would if the government were not on everybody's backs. Today many people have to work long hours to survive and often both spouses of a family have to work full-time.
Limited government does not necessarily mean that individuals may harm others. Limited government is limited in the sense that it is restricted to acting only to protect the liberties of individuals. Environmental harm is an infringement on the liberties of others who share the same local environment, so any person causing such harm could be prosecuted on these grounds.
I think it's more likely for an unelected dictator to pass a bad law on a whim, than it is for 2/3 of the American people. It is also a lot more difficult to get a bad law overturned.
You can't think of any bad laws that Americans have voted in favor of? I bet you are constantly worried about the possibility of religious fundamentalists succeeding in passing laws you think are greatly unjust. I am not advocating any type of dictatorship. I am saying that democracy is effectively the same as dictatorship. Democracy can lead to unelected dictators, since people could democratically vote for their freedoms to be taken from them by act of legislation. Americans have been doing this for the 100 years.
Leaders in communist countries were not elected by the people. They were appointed, and the people were forced to vote for whomever was appointed. There were no elections in Nazi Germany. Once Hitler declared himself ruler, there was no possibility of voting him out of office.
No, in communist countries, the party selects a number of candidates and the people vote for the candidate they want. The parties in the U.S. do exactly the same thing: The parties select the candidates people may vote between and the people elect one of those candidates. In both cases the people have no real control over the kind of representative they vote for. The difference is that in the U.S. independent candidates may run, but the parties are so dominant and support for them so entrenched that in practice independents rarely are elected.
The Nazis were elected into office. Hitler was made Chancellor by the elected government of the day and Hitler was later given emergency, dictorial powers by the elected government. Read up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Rise_to_power
Clearly Germans got "the type of government they wanted".
Who is the one who is going to decide how limited our government should be, if it's not the people?
Who else besides the people would it be? I didn't say the people should not choose their type of government. An influential majority of the people must realize that limited government is the only just type of government and then vote it in. That is the only way we are going to get it. Why would I bother advocating it in an internet forum if there was some way for me to make everybody choose it?
Our freedoms have greatly increased over the past 200 years. 200 years ago, if you had the wrong skin color, you were considered nothing more than someone's property.
Today we are the government's property because it controls us so heavily. If you are only part free, you are all slave.
The freeing of black slaves from private owners was nothing to do with the type of government we had, except that it intervened to prohibit slavery; but that could be construed as protection of individual liberty, which is the permissible role of limited government.
goreantx
04-08-2011, 02:50 AM
Cuz I dont want to pay taxes.