Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I point to reality and understanding of human nature. I am unimpressed with mythical ideals which ultimately translate to "I want". You have the right to speak your mind not because it is an unalienable right, but because our laws say you do and our society lives by those laws. It is the very structure of our government that protects you, the structure you seem to want to change. Take away that structure and you have no rights at all, unalienable or otherwise. Like it or not, the government is one of the glues which hold this rather precarious situation together.
Your view is not inclusive of natural law and what makes for an evolving society.
Good people do not need the laws to respect natural law. They recognize it and abide by it. Perhaps you never heard the golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Seems you have not.
Good people know natural law and to see that it is not violated they made a formal agreement upon it and that is called the constitution.
The intents of the constitution were layer out in the Declaration of Independence. It define the ideals that good people stood to defend for themselves and others. Bolded below.
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, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The good people that wrote that and agreed upon it intended for the American people to be able to alter or abolish government destructive to those ideals.
How do you think they intended for the American people to be able to alter of abolish government powerful enough to be destructive to those ideals?
You are certainly free to believe whatever you like regarding "natural law". That is yet another meaningless term that is used to justify whatever position one wants to have. People used "natural law" to justify slavery. The only thing which should matter at all is law.
The intent of the Constitution is in the preamble to the Constitution. The intent of the DOI was to rally the people to arms in support of a revolution. That is why it contained such phrases as "unalienable rights" and "natural laws". It wasn't a legal document, it was a propaganda document. the Founders understood the difference.
The Founders did not intend for the American people to alter or abolish the government. That is, in fact, the one crime they actually put in the Constitution. It is called treason. What the Founders did was create a system in which the Constitution could be amended, and placed that firmly in the hands of the various governments, both federal and state. It doesn't allow for the people to do anything except through the government.
The ideals address needs, not wants.
You are against ideals, you are against the constitution. You have no plan. You have no morals and ethics. You have no hope.
What you think is a need is just a want. I am unimpressed with ideals, I am for the Constitution. But when I talk about the Constitution, I am talking about the actual document, not some ideal you wish to replace it with.
As to the rest, you are free to think as you please. It does not matter to me at all.
Hah! Now you've exposed your level of intelligence or lack of integrity or both.
Are you going to try and say you do not need your life, and instead you only want it?
You are evading addressing the natural law of your instinctual, phylogenetic DNA.
If the framers had not intended the American people have the right to alter or abolish through their states, Article V would not have been included in the 1787 constitution.
You are also evading the issue of the numbers of states required to apply for a convention which requires congress to call a convention.
It appears you do have the reasonable accountability to conduct a discussion upon any kind of law whatsoever.
Logically that makes you an agent of tyrants, despots and infiltrators of government, because no American would ever state that Americans working to lawfully manifest the intents of the Declaration of Independence is treason.
Your unaccountability serves not answering HOW the framers intended Americans to alter or abolish, as well as your incompetent, erroneous statement that working to do so constitutes treason.
American unity upon definition of constitutional intent makes "the people the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" and use of that unity to amend through Article V is designed to constitutionally alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, something you in effectively and hypocritically attempt to deny exists.
Your evasion of that point of "HOW" indicates that you have lost the debate of the topic of the thread relating to the purpose of free speech and indeed are working against that purpose with ineffective effort to confuse the facts of the framing documents.
I don't think I have evaded it. I've dealt with it head on. It is a myth, a lie, a totally untrue concept. There is no such thing as natural law. There is no such thing as an inherent right. They do not exist. All you have are those rights the society allows you to have, whether you are willing to accept that reality or not.
You are living in a fantasy world. Your choice, but I don't plan to join you.
You are not reading. I repeat.
"Your unaccountability serves not answering HOW the framers intended Americans to alter or abolish."
Practice makes perfect if i think i can.I always try to provide some difficulty.It is Only meaningless for Privateers not holders of offices of Public Trust.I see. So again, it is meaningless. Either you have the right to a trial or you do not. Calling it inalienable adds absolutely nothing to the right. If the community decides you don't have that right (as depicted in those heart warming photographs) then you don't. What prevents that from happening is not some word but the law.
It is only meaningful for those who refuse to see the world as it is. This is fine so long as you live in a world that protects you. I suspect the problem is that having lived only in that world you have come to think of rights as your due. Which means those rights can be taken from you with no difficulty at all.
I'm sure you think you do.
It is the difference between mere animals and political animals. Social justice was developed for a reason.Practice makes perfect if i think i can.I always try to provide some difficulty.It is Only meaningless for Privateers not holders of offices of Public Trust.
It is only meaningful for those who refuse to see the world as it is. This is fine so long as you live in a world that protects you. I suspect the problem is that having lived only in that world you have come to think of rights as your due. Which means those rights can be taken from you with no difficulty at all.
I'm sure you think you do.
Get into a lot of shootouts with the police, do you? Spend a lot of time defending your home against roving bands of armed men? Go to Somalia and spend a couple of years there standing up for your rights to the warlords and then I'll take you seriously. Anybody can be a badass sitting at a keyboard in an air-conditioned room while munching potato chips. Just a hint for you, in the real world when you die, hitting restart doesn't make you come back.
Your view is not inclusive of natural law and what makes for an evolving society.
Good people do not need the laws to respect natural law. They recognize it and abide by it. Perhaps you never heard the golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Seems you have not.
Good people know natural law and to see that it is not violated they made a formal agreement upon it and that is called the constitution.
The intents of the constitution were layer out in the Declaration of Independence. It define the ideals that good people stood to defend for themselves and others. Bolded below.
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, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The good people that wrote that and agreed upon it intended for the American people to be able to alter or abolish government destructive to those ideals.
How do you think they intended for the American people to be able to alter of abolish government powerful enough to be destructive to those ideals?
You are certainly free to believe whatever you like regarding "natural law". That is yet another meaningless term that is used to justify whatever position one wants to have. People used "natural law" to justify slavery. The only thing which should matter at all is law.
The intent of the Constitution is in the preamble to the Constitution. The intent of the DOI was to rally the people to arms in support of a revolution. That is why it contained such phrases as "unalienable rights" and "natural laws". It wasn't a legal document, it was a propaganda document. the Founders understood the difference.
The Founders did not intend for the American people to alter or abolish the government. That is, in fact, the one crime they actually put in the Constitution. It is called treason. What the Founders did was create a system in which the Constitution could be amended, and placed that firmly in the hands of the various governments, both federal and state. It doesn't allow for the people to do anything except through the government.
What you think is a need is just a want. I am unimpressed with ideals, I am for the Constitution. But when I talk about the Constitution, I am talking about the actual document, not some ideal you wish to replace it with.
As to the rest, you are free to think as you please. It does not matter to me at all.
Hah! Now you've exposed your level of intelligence or lack of integrity or both.
Are you going to try and say you do not need your life, and instead you only want it?
You are evading addressing the natural law of your instinctual, phylogenetic DNA.
If the framers had not intended the American people have the right to alter or abolish through their states, Article V would not have been included in the 1787 constitution.
You are also evading the issue of the numbers of states required to apply for a convention which requires congress to call a convention.
It appears you do not have the reasonable accountability to conduct a discussion upon any kind of law whatsoever.
Logically that makes you an agent of tyrants, despots and infiltrators of government, because no American would ever state that Americans working to lawfully manifest the intents of the Declaration of Independence is treason.
Your unaccountability serves not answering HOW the framers intended Americans to alter or abolish, as well as your incompetent, erroneous statement that working to do so constitutes treason.
American unity upon definition of constitutional intent makes "the people the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" and use of that unity to amend through Article V is designed to constitutionally alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, something you in effectively and hypocritically attempt to deny exists.
Your evasion of that point of "HOW" indicates that you have lost the debate of the topic of the thread relating to the purpose of free speech and indeed are working against that purpose with ineffective effort to confuse the facts of the framing documents.
I don't think I have evaded it. I've dealt with it head on. It is a myth, a lie, a totally untrue concept. There is no such thing as natural law. There is no such thing as an inherent right. They do not exist. All you have are those rights the society allows you to have, whether you are willing to accept that reality or not.
You are living in a fantasy world. Your choice, but I don't plan to join you.
You are not reading. I repeat.
"Your unaccountability serves not answering HOW the framers intended Americans to alter or abolish."
You are not reading. I have already responded to that claim and done so more than once. They didn't intend. Not even a little bit. Your claim that Article V is about that is absurd. I understand you want it to be that way, but wanting it doesn't make it so. And your thinking there is even a small minority of American citizens who desire that, let alone are calling for it, is pure fantasy.
You are certainly free to believe whatever you like regarding "natural law". That is yet another meaningless term that is used to justify whatever position one wants to have. People used "natural law" to justify slavery. The only thing which should matter at all is law.
The intent of the Constitution is in the preamble to the Constitution. The intent of the DOI was to rally the people to arms in support of a revolution. That is why it contained such phrases as "unalienable rights" and "natural laws". It wasn't a legal document, it was a propaganda document. the Founders understood the difference.
The Founders did not intend for the American people to alter or abolish the government. That is, in fact, the one crime they actually put in the Constitution. It is called treason. What the Founders did was create a system in which the Constitution could be amended, and placed that firmly in the hands of the various governments, both federal and state. It doesn't allow for the people to do anything except through the government.
Hah! Now you've exposed your level of intelligence or lack of integrity or both.
Are you going to try and say you do not need your life, and instead you only want it?
You are evading addressing the natural law of your instinctual, phylogenetic DNA.
If the framers had not intended the American people have the right to alter or abolish through their states, Article V would not have been included in the 1787 constitution.
You are also evading the issue of the numbers of states required to apply for a convention which requires congress to call a convention.
It appears you do not have the reasonable accountability to conduct a discussion upon any kind of law whatsoever.
Logically that makes you an agent of tyrants, despots and infiltrators of government, because no American would ever state that Americans working to lawfully manifest the intents of the Declaration of Independence is treason.
Your unaccountability serves not answering HOW the framers intended Americans to alter or abolish, as well as your incompetent, erroneous statement that working to do so constitutes treason.
American unity upon definition of constitutional intent makes "the people the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" and use of that unity to amend through Article V is designed to constitutionally alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, something you in effectively and hypocritically attempt to deny exists.
Your evasion of that point of "HOW" indicates that you have lost the debate of the topic of the thread relating to the purpose of free speech and indeed are working against that purpose with ineffective effort to confuse the facts of the framing documents.
I don't think I have evaded it. I've dealt with it head on. It is a myth, a lie, a totally untrue concept. There is no such thing as natural law. There is no such thing as an inherent right. They do not exist. All you have are those rights the society allows you to have, whether you are willing to accept that reality or not.
You are living in a fantasy world. Your choice, but I don't plan to join you.
You are not reading. I repeat.
"Your unaccountability serves not answering HOW the framers intended Americans to alter or abolish."
You are not reading. I have already responded to that claim and done so more than once. They didn't intend. Not even a little bit. Your claim that Article V is about that is absurd. I understand you want it to be that way, but wanting it doesn't make it so. And your thinking there is even a small minority of American citizens who desire that, let alone are calling for it, is pure fantasy.
Hah hah hah hah . . . This is the last forum you want to try and lie in.
It's not a claim, it's a question.
If you had addressed it, it would be in the above chain of quotes, and it's not.
You are a joke.
Get into a lot of shootouts with the police, do you? Spend a lot of time defending your home against roving bands of armed men? Go to Somalia and spend a couple of years there standing up for your rights to the warlords and then I'll take you seriously. Anybody can be a badass sitting at a keyboard in an air-conditioned room while munching potato chips. Just a hint for you, in the real world when you die, hitting restart doesn't make you come back.
In looking very closely at the framing documents to derive constitutional intent, something required for all amendments from an Article V convention, I came to a conclusion that is very reasonable. The Declaration of Independence defines unalienable rights of the people, and their right to alter or abolish government destructive to those rights. Article V is the codified intent of "alter or abolish".
If the framers intended for the people to alter or abolish government powerful enough to be destructive to unalienable rights, they intended for the people to be powerful enough to effectively do that. HOW, did the framers intend for the people to actually have that power? Only one answer came to mind. The framers intended for the people to be adequately unified to have the power of their numbers to alter or abolish.
What then, did the framers intend to serve the purpose of enabling such unity?
Only one answer came to mind. Freedom of speech.
This, logically is an extension of natural law which indicates that free speech must exist so people can share AND understand information vital to survival.
Today, obvious to anyone who has tried to share vital information, no sharing or understanding significant to inform the mass populations we have can be effected. Accordingly, the ultimate purpose of free speech is abridged, and basically has been since the First Amendment was written. The First Amendment does not define that free speech has any purpose. Good and bad speech are equal despite the fact that the Declaration of Independence defines that Life is a prime unalienable rich
Seems this could lead to a constitutional disaster, if it is not already upon us.
"Your unaccountability serves not answering HOW the framers intended Americans to alter or abolish."
There is no question mark in that sentence. You are a spoiled child and you are now boring me.
Get into a lot of shootouts with the police, do you? Spend a lot of time defending your home against roving bands of armed men? Go to Somalia and spend a couple of years there standing up for your rights to the warlords and then I'll take you seriously. Anybody can be a badass sitting at a keyboard in an air-conditioned room while munching potato chips. Just a hint for you, in the real world when you die, hitting restart doesn't make you come back.
The concern is that increasingly, with every expansion of state regulatory power, "the roving bands of armed men" are agents of the government. Government is supposed to protectsus from the bullies, not become the bullies.
Get into a lot of shootouts with the police, do you? Spend a lot of time defending your home against roving bands of armed men? Go to Somalia and spend a couple of years there standing up for your rights to the warlords and then I'll take you seriously. Anybody can be a badass sitting at a keyboard in an air-conditioned room while munching potato chips. Just a hint for you, in the real world when you die, hitting restart doesn't make you come back.
The concern is that increasingly, with every expansion of state regulatory power, "the roving bands of armed men" are agents of the government. Government is supposed to protectsus from the bullies, not become the bullies.
Get into a lot of shootouts with the police, do you? Spend a lot of time defending your home against roving bands of armed men? Go to Somalia and spend a couple of years there standing up for your rights to the warlords and then I'll take you seriously. Anybody can be a badass sitting at a keyboard in an air-conditioned room while munching potato chips. Just a hint for you, in the real world when you die, hitting restart doesn't make you come back.
The concern is that increasingly, with every expansion of state regulatory power, "the roving bands of armed men" are agents of the government. Government is supposed to protectsus from the bullies, not become the bullies.
That may be the concern, but that doesn't mean the concern is justified. Governments are not a different species. They are made up of human beings and human beings are going to make mistakes, have errors of judgment, have a different interpretation. That is why we also have the courts.
... It seems to be working just fine.
Get into a lot of shootouts with the police, do you? Spend a lot of time defending your home against roving bands of armed men? Go to Somalia and spend a couple of years there standing up for your rights to the warlords and then I'll take you seriously. Anybody can be a badass sitting at a keyboard in an air-conditioned room while munching potato chips. Just a hint for you, in the real world when you die, hitting restart doesn't make you come back.
The concern is that increasingly, with every expansion of state regulatory power, "the roving bands of armed men" are agents of the government. Government is supposed to protectsus from the bullies, not become the bullies.
That may be the concern, but that doesn't mean the concern is justified. Governments are not a different species. They are made up of human beings and human beings are going to make mistakes, have errors of judgment, have a different interpretation. That is why we also have the courts. It seems to be working just fine.
Get into a lot of shootouts with the police, do you? Spend a lot of time defending your home against roving bands of armed men? Go to Somalia and spend a couple of years there standing up for your rights to the warlords and then I'll take you seriously. Anybody can be a badass sitting at a keyboard in an air-conditioned room while munching potato chips. Just a hint for you, in the real world when you die, hitting restart doesn't make you come back.
The concern is that increasingly, with every expansion of state regulatory power, "the roving bands of armed men" are agents of the government. Government is supposed to protectsus from the bullies, not become the bullies.
That may be the concern, but that doesn't mean the concern is justified. Governments are not a different species. They are made up of human beings and human beings are going to make mistakes, have errors of judgment, have a different interpretation. That is why we also have the courts.
It's also why we have a Constitution that limits the power of government, so those mistakes and errors of judgment do as little damage as possible.
... It seems to be working just fine.
That's a dubious claim at best. Most people seem to recognize that the US is becoming less governable, more polarized and stymied by conflicting ideologies.
Get into a lot of shootouts with the police, do you? Spend a lot of time defending your home against roving bands of armed men? Go to Somalia and spend a couple of years there standing up for your rights to the warlords and then I'll take you seriously. Anybody can be a badass sitting at a keyboard in an air-conditioned room while munching potato chips. Just a hint for you, in the real world when you die, hitting restart doesn't make you come back.
The concern is that increasingly, with every expansion of state regulatory power, "the roving bands of armed men" are agents of the government. Government is supposed to protectsus from the bullies, not become the bullies.
That may be the concern, but that doesn't mean the concern is justified. Governments are not a different species. They are made up of human beings and human beings are going to make mistakes, have errors of judgment, have a different interpretation. That is why we also have the courts.
It's also why we have a Constitution that limits the power of government, so those mistakes and errors of judgment do as little damage as possible.
... It seems to be working just fine.
That's a dubious claim at best. Most people seem to recognize that the US is becoming less governable, more polarized and stymied by conflicting ideologies.
The Constitution creates checks and balances within the government to prevent any one branch from becoming supreme and it creates rights for the citizenry and the states..
Get into a lot of shootouts with the police, do you? Spend a lot of time defending your home against roving bands of armed men? Go to Somalia and spend a couple of years there standing up for your rights to the warlords and then I'll take you seriously. Anybody can be a badass sitting at a keyboard in an air-conditioned room while munching potato chips. Just a hint for you, in the real world when you die, hitting restart doesn't make you come back.
The concern is that increasingly, with every expansion of state regulatory power, "the roving bands of armed men" are agents of the government. Government is supposed to protectsus from the bullies, not become the bullies.
That may be the concern, but that doesn't mean the concern is justified. Governments are not a different species. They are made up of human beings and human beings are going to make mistakes, have errors of judgment, have a different interpretation. That is why we also have the courts. It seems to be working just fine.
Clearly you are unexperienced. I am going to post proof that the US district court in Los Angeles violated US code in order to conceal treason and mass murder.
The original filing of 38 pages complete with all evidence proving the concealment of treason by FEMA, PBS, Guiliani and Silverstein are on this first page.
9-11-misprision of treason Title 18 part I chapter 115 2382
The concealment of treason is proven here.
Title 18 part I chapter 115 2382
and here
9-11-misprision of treason Title 18 part I chapter 115 2382
Further, in 1998 the courts allowed the sheriffs dept. here to fail to appear on subpoena in a case regarding the most important records a society can keep. The records I subpoenaed would have proven such records were absent from the local court records.
Between those 2 instances another federal suit was filed to try and compel effective mental health care for drug addiction and alcoholism. In that situation the same court that later concealed treason secretly revised a 125 year old court rule which deprived all citizens in the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit of virtual pre se civil rights. That has now extended to the entire nation and there is no note anywhere of the revision.
Also, the local newspaper was bought in 2002, undoubtedly to stop a story about that lawsuit. When a reporter was given a copy of the lawsuit, two weeks later the firings, resigning and gagging of reporters began.
Here they are in protest in De La Gurerra Plaza in from of the news press building.
The complete story with links to the lawsuit and further deprivations of right, due process and justice are linked from there.
Santa Barbara Secrets of media-Newspress independent county public defender.
You have no clue, and certainly do not want anyone to have a clue.
Our courts do not function when it comes to correcting lawless government and the purpose of free speech is abridged.
Get into a lot of shootouts with the police, do you? Spend a lot of time defending your home against roving bands of armed men? Go to Somalia and spend a couple of years there standing up for your rights to the warlords and then I'll take you seriously. Anybody can be a badass sitting at a keyboard in an air-conditioned room while munching potato chips. Just a hint for you, in the real world when you die, hitting restart doesn't make you come back.
The concern is that increasingly, with every expansion of state regulatory power, "the roving bands of armed men" are agents of the government. Government is supposed to protectsus from the bullies, not become the bullies.
That may be the concern, but that doesn't mean the concern is justified. Governments are not a different species. They are made up of human beings and human beings are going to make mistakes, have errors of judgment, have a different interpretation. That is why we also have the courts.
It's also why we have a Constitution that limits the power of government, so those mistakes and errors of judgment do as little damage as possible.
... It seems to be working just fine.
That's a dubious claim at best. Most people seem to recognize that the US is becoming less governable, more polarized and stymied by conflicting ideologies.
Get into a lot of shootouts with the police, do you? Spend a lot of time defending your home against roving bands of armed men? Go to Somalia and spend a couple of years there standing up for your rights to the warlords and then I'll take you seriously. Anybody can be a badass sitting at a keyboard in an air-conditioned room while munching potato chips. Just a hint for you, in the real world when you die, hitting restart doesn't make you come back.
The concern is that increasingly, with every expansion of state regulatory power, "the roving bands of armed men" are agents of the government. Government is supposed to protectsus from the bullies, not become the bullies.
That may be the concern, but that doesn't mean the concern is justified. Governments are not a different species. They are made up of human beings and human beings are going to make mistakes, have errors of judgment, have a different interpretation. That is why we also have the courts. It seems to be working just fine.
Clearly you are unexperienced. I am going to post proof that the US district court in Los Angeles violated US code in order to conceal treason and mass murder.
The original filing of 38 pages complete with all evidence proving the concealment of treason by FEMA, PBS, Guiliani and Silverstein are on this first page.
9-11-misprision of treason Title 18 part I chapter 115 2382
The concealment of treason is proven here.
Title 18 part I chapter 115 2382
and here
9-11-misprision of treason Title 18 part I chapter 115 2382
Further, in 1998 the courts allowed the sheriffs dept. here to fail to appear on subpoena in a case regarding the most important records a society can keep. The records I subpoenaed would have proven such records were absent from the local court records.
Between those 2 instances another federal suit was filed to try and compel effective mental health care for drug addiction and alcoholism. In that situation the same court that later concealed treason secretly revised a 125 year old court rule which deprived all citizens in the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit of virtual pre se civil rights. That has now extended to the entire nation and there is no note anywhere of the revision.
Also, the local newspaper was bought in 2002, undoubtedly to stop a story about that lawsuit. When a reporter was given a copy of the lawsuit, two weeks later the firings, resigning and gagging of reporters began.
Here they are in protest in De La Gurerra Plaza in from of the news press building.
The complete story with links to the lawsuit and further deprivations of right, due process and justice are linked from there.
Santa Barbara Secrets of media-Newspress independent county public defender.
You have no clue, and certainly do not want anyone to have a clue.
Our courts do not function when it comes to correcting lawless government and the purpose of free speech is abridged.Get into a lot of shootouts with the police, do you? Spend a lot of time defending your home against roving bands of armed men? Go to Somalia and spend a couple of years there standing up for your rights to the warlords and then I'll take you seriously. Anybody can be a badass sitting at a keyboard in an air-conditioned room while munching potato chips. Just a hint for you, in the real world when you die, hitting restart doesn't make you come back.
The concern is that increasingly, with every expansion of state regulatory power, "the roving bands of armed men" are agents of the government. Government is supposed to protectsus from the bullies, not become the bullies.
That may be the concern, but that doesn't mean the concern is justified. Governments are not a different species. They are made up of human beings and human beings are going to make mistakes, have errors of judgment, have a different interpretation. That is why we also have the courts.
It's also why we have a Constitution that limits the power of government, so those mistakes and errors of judgment do as little damage as possible.
... It seems to be working just fine.
That's a dubious claim at best. Most people seem to recognize that the US is becoming less governable, more polarized and stymied by conflicting ideologies.
I've been considering your last comment and it hit me that while I don't think it is worse now than it has been in the past, being difficult to govern, polarized and stymied by conflicting ideologies is how you know you are in a free society. You get none of that in a dictatorship, because it is not allowed. A free people are always going to be difficult and polarized. It's the nature of freedom.
I've been considering your last comment and it hit me that while I don't think it is worse now than it has been in the past, being difficult to govern, polarized and stymied by conflicting ideologies is how you know you are in a free society. You get none of that in a dictatorship, because it is not allowed. A free people are always going to be difficult and polarized. It's the nature of freedom.
I've been considering your last comment and it hit me that while I don't think it is worse now than it has been in the past, being difficult to govern, polarized and stymied by conflicting ideologies is how you know you are in a free society. You get none of that in a dictatorship, because it is not allowed. A free people are always going to be difficult and polarized. It's the nature of freedom.
That's a good point. And when it comes to dealing with people voluntarily as a society, it's very true. Freedom requires tolerating conflict and disagreement. But what we're talking about is disagreement over the scope of government, which is specifically the power to end conflict and disagreement with force.
I've been considering your last comment and it hit me that while I don't think it is worse now than it has been in the past, being difficult to govern, polarized and stymied by conflicting ideologies is how you know you are in a free society. You get none of that in a dictatorship, because it is not allowed. A free people are always going to be difficult and polarized. It's the nature of freedom.
That's a good point. And when it comes to dealing with people voluntarily as a society, it's very true. Freedom requires tolerating conflict and disagreement. But what we're talking about is disagreement over the scope of government, which is specifically the power to end conflict and disagreement with force.
I've been considering your last comment and it hit me that while I don't think it is worse now than it has been in the past, being difficult to govern, polarized and stymied by conflicting ideologies is how you know you are in a free society. You get none of that in a dictatorship, because it is not allowed. A free people are always going to be difficult and polarized. It's the nature of freedom.
That's a good point. And when it comes to dealing with people voluntarily as a society, it's very true. Freedom requires tolerating conflict and disagreement. But what we're talking about is disagreement over the scope of government, which is specifically the power to end conflict and disagreement with force.
And yet we don't see that happening. Certainly we see police trying to keep the lid on outright violence, but the government actually protects conflict and disagreement.
