mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama

[Cainad (dec.)]

In a completely free society, the weak are free to submit to the strong, and the strong are free to take advantage of it. The weak are also free to bring down their peers who do not submit to the strong, lest the wrath of the strong be wreaked upon them. And that's more or less what they do. Yay freedom.

[Messier Undertree]

the weak are free to submit to the strong

It's not a freedom if they have no choice but to do so. o-o

[The Good Reverend Roger]

the weak are free to submit to the strong

It's not a freedom if they have no choice but to do so. o-o

STOP HATING FREEDOM AND LOVING TERRORISTS!   

[Messier Undertree]

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Anything and anyone is funny, if you loop them right.

[Triple Zero]

Anything and anyone is funny, if you loop them right.

finally, this thread is going somewhere that i understand

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Exactly the opposite. ANY domination is a restriction of Freedom. It matters little if it is the Strong Warlord or the Strong Political Party. Anytime the Strong can make demands of the Weak, then the weak are not free.

On the other hand, the idea of a republic is that the majority rule within the constraints of law.

Take your pic:  The rule of law, or anarchy.  Yes, you do have to choose.

Yes, in some sense, you're right. Using the definition of Freedom, that I mentioned before (complete personal freedom as long as it doesn't impact the freedom of others), I think that its obvious that some sort of laws would be required to deal with the potential infringement by someone on someone else's freedom.  However, those laws don't reduce freedom, since freedom (as defined above) would not extend to impacting the freedom of others. However, ANY LAW beyond those, which is notvoluntarily agreed upon by the individual free person is a reduction of that persons freedom. In some cases, it may be useful (like taxes), in some cases it may be due to rule by loud minority or a loud majority, Constitution be damned (see Prohibition etc).

Upon reflection, then I must amend my initial statement. The rule of law protects freedom, as long as 1) The law is to protect the freedom of Individual A from Individual B, or 2) The law is agreed upon by the individual humans involved. Law can protect the weak from the strong and some of our laws do just that. Laws can also restrict the freedom of the individual and some of our laws do just that.

I am not stating that our society would be better off without laws, only that laws do not 'ensure freedom', they ensure safety, at the cost of freedom. A cost that most societies seem happy to pay.

Nonsense.  Amendments II, IV, IX, and X promote freedom at the expense of security.

[/quote]

I'll give you 4, 9 and 10 as laws specifically designed to protect individuals from having their freedom infringed upon (as I mentioned above), but the second amendment was primarily for security purposes (ie having a well trained militia). If the second amendment 'ensured freedom' then there wouldn't be the myriad of gun control laws across the states today, would there?

The majority vote, the representatives of the majority meet and create bills, those bills are ratified by other representatives of the majority and signed by the President, elected by the Majority.

Um, yeah, you forgot about the part where the laws are subordinate to the constitution, regardless of the will of the majority.

Or are you one of those people who say that your inability to force your beliefs on others is a violation of your freedom?

Not sure what your last sentence was intended to mean, but again, I would point to Prohibition as an excellent example of how the will of a subset of citizens can be forced upon all citizens and the Constitution can be amended to make it OK... amended without the consent of the individuals held to the resulting restrictions.

At the time of the Civil War, not more than a couple generations removed from our own 'Rebellion', I would point you to the position we held in the Declaration of Independence:

Amazingly enough, the DoI is not a US legal document or law.

The DoI was the document we used to justify the secession of the colonies from England. It was what the United States provided to the world as its rationale. Our actions in the Civil War, belied that philosophy. Either The People are the ultimate governor of government and have the right to remove themselves from its control (as we did with England), or they do not (as the South found out in the Civil War). But as you say, it is not a legal document...

Oh NOES!!! Silly me looking at the entirety of the founding documents of this nation to learn more about the philosophy that the nation was founded upon!!! I should have just read the Constitution, obviously its completely clear and never needs interpreted or clarified.

Except the bit where it said nothing for or against secession and also said that the powers not enumerated were retained by the People...

[Requia ☣]

 :oops:The DoI was not a justification of anything, it was a *declaration*, a simple notice to england that the 13 colonies were finished with playing nice.  Not that england hadn't already figured it out with all the fighting that was already going on.

If Jefferson hadn't been such an incredible writer, nobody would even remember the document exists.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

:oops:The DoI was not a justification of anything, it was a *declaration*, a simple notice to england that the 13 colonies were finished with playing nice.  Not that england hadn't already figured it out with all the fighting that was already going on.

If Jefferson hadn't been such an incredible writer, nobody would even remember the document exists.

...

Well, perhaps my history professors were wrong, as most of them claimed that the declaration was a justification and a way of establishing clear reasons for their rebellion aaginst england (both for the colonists that were not yet supporting the revolution and to other nations), so that this new nation would be accepted on the world scene. The statement of Independence had been completed on the second of July IIRC and the formal Declaration was intended to formalize the statement and provide the rationale.

But, maybe thats not true.

[Requia ☣]

:oops:The DoI was not a justification of anything, it was a *declaration*, a simple notice to england that the 13 colonies were finished with playing nice.  Not that england hadn't already figured it out with all the fighting that was already going on.

If Jefferson hadn't been such an incredible writer, nobody would even remember the document exists.

...

Well, perhaps my history professors were wrong, as most of them claimed that the declaration was a justification and a way of establishing clear reasons for their rebellion aaginst england (both for the colonists that were not yet supporting the revolution and to other nations), so that this new nation would be accepted on the world scene. The statement of Independence had been completed on the second of July IIRC and the formal Declaration was intended to formalize the statement and provide the rationale.

But, maybe thats not true.

OK, so its also a rabble rousing piece.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

The Declaration is not a legally binding document. It was a set of justifications, mostly for the purpose of clarifying the intentions of the Colonists and for appealing to foreign governments for assistance and recognition. It is, in principal, the same philosophy that was espoused by the CSA. But the motivations for the North in keeping the Union together were not the same motivations of the King of England for trying to keep the Colonies from breaking away from the British Empire.  To begin with, the Southern States were full-fledged members of the Union and nobody was trying to deny them that, they were trying to keep them from breaking the Union up. Secondly, a colony declaring independence from the Colonizer is not the same as half a nation parting ways with the rest of the nation. If the South were allowed to do that, it would call into question the validity and purpose of the federal government altogether, in effect nullifying the entire USA as a coherent political body. Even if other states never seceded, it wouldn't take much to interpret the "right" of secession as an effective excuse for States to disregard the legal supremacy of the Constitution, which would basically have led to the same situation the country was in with the failure of the Articles of Confederation.

In any case, it is not a Declaration that grants a new or separatist political faction any legal authority or even the right to exist. Only by successfully convincing those who would destroy them can they secure that right. So the CSA never had the right to secede, precisely because they lost the Civil War.

[Cain]

In insurgency parlance, the DoI was the plausible promise of the sepratists of their vision of society, as far as I can see.  Part media manifesto, part vision and part rallying document for the cause.

That's not to say its not a brilliant piece of writing as well, but functionally, it was a 18th century Rant.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yes, in some sense, you're right. Using the definition of Freedom, that I mentioned before (complete personal freedom as long as it doesn't impact the freedom of others), I think that its obvious that some sort of laws would be required to deal with the potential infringement by someone on someone else's freedom.  However, those laws don't reduce freedom, since freedom (as defined above) would not extend to impacting the freedom of others. However, ANY LAW beyond those, which is notvoluntarily agreed upon by the individual free person is a reduction of that persons freedom.

True.  Freedom is not served by pot laws, for example.

I'll give you 4, 9 and 10 as laws specifically designed to protect individuals from having their freedom infringed upon (as I mentioned above), but the second amendment was primarily for security purposes (ie having a well trained militia). If the second amendment 'ensured freedom' then there wouldn't be the myriad of gun control laws across the states today, would there?

1.  According to Franklin and Jefferson, the 2d was included specifically to keep the people free by maintaining a credible threat against a tyrannical government.

2.  True.  But America has turned sissy, and freedom isn't for sissies.

Not sure what your last sentence was intended to mean, but again, I would point to Prohibition as an excellent example of how the will of a subset of citizens can be forced upon all citizens and the Constitution can be amended to make it OK... amended without the consent of the individuals held to the resulting restrictions.

Name ONE collection of humans that doesn't have pushy puritanical bastards.  Occasionally, every rat has his day.

The DoI was the document we used to justify the secession of the colonies from England. It was what the United States provided to the world as its rationale. Our actions in the Civil War, belied that philosophy. Either The People are the ultimate governor of government and have the right to remove themselves from its control (as we did with England), or they do not (as the South found out in the Civil War). But as you say, it is not a legal document...

Oh NOES!!! Silly me looking at the entirety of the founding documents of this nation to learn more about the philosophy that the nation was founded upon!!! I should have just read the Constitution, obviously its completely clear and never needs interpreted or clarified.

The fact remains:  the DoI is not an article of law.

Except the bit where it said nothing for or against secession and also said that the powers not enumerated were retained by the People...

Article I, sec 9, clause 2 allows the congress to take action in event of insurrection.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

In insurgency parlance, the DoI was the plausible promise of the sepratists of their vision of society, as far as I can see.  Part media manifesto, part vision and part rallying document for the cause.

That's not to say its not a brilliant piece of writing as well, but functionally, it was a 18th century Rant.

And a glorious list of bitches it was.

[Roo]

In any case, it is not a Declaration that grants a new or separatist political faction any legal authority or even the right to exist. Only by successfully convincing those who would destroy them can they secure that right. So the CSA never had the right to secede, precisely because they lost the Civil War.

I think that's a sloppy argument. The CSA had the right to secede. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids it, iirc. They lost that right when they lost the war, but they did have it to begin with (or else how did they secede in the first place?). Is that the same as never having had that right?