CDZ If you . . .

[martybegan]

The Constitution gives power for things like that to the State Legislatures.

And there is also the idea of local rule. If the people of Alabama want to ban abortion and SSM, why should people in NY care?

I take exception with the idea that a piece of parchment can "give power".

However, I agree that people in NY shouldn't have a say about what people in Alabama do. By this same logic, no individual or group should have a say about what any other individual or group does, as long as no one's fundamental rights are being violated. Obviously, this obviates democracy in any form.

It does give power to the various levels of government. Now If I said it gives "rights" you may have a better argument.

And the big "L" Libertarian in you of course sees it that way, but the small "l" libertarian in me sees the ability of people to consent to forms of government, such as we have, in a strict constructional federalist way (to me) of course.

When we say “power”, what is meant? It’s not merely the ability to do something. A document can’t establish that; the ability either exists or it does not.

So the document is trying to establish the right to do something. To accept this document, you must believe that man can create rights (via small-group consensus and writing things down, apparently). The ostensible idea here is not “We don’t have a right to do these things, but we’re going to do them anyway”; it’s “By consent of the governed we do have a right to do these things.”

Government is the claim that some may obtain rights in excess of what others have. Congress may lay and collect taxes, but you may not. And the only things that lay outside the realm of individual rights are individual “wrongs”, i.e. actions that infringe upon the rights of others. Government is literally, by definition, the right to do what is wrong; or license to act immorally.

People cannot change the nature of morality by consent. And especially not when they are “consenting” on behalf of others (an impossibility), which is precisely the situation here, since many do not consent but are made subject to government anyway.

Any moral government would be indistinguishable from any other group of individuals, since rights are equal across all of humanity. So you see that government’s only distinguishing characteristic is immorality, and it must be so in all cases; there is simply no way around this.

The document breaks down the powers given to the Federal government, those given to the States, and those retained by the People.

The rest of your post is basically just wishing reality wasn't reality.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I'm a proud member of the Mind Your Own F@#&ing Business Party.

The one and only policy is shut your mouth and stop telling people what to do.

What a concept! You must be some kind of wheelchair-bound genius to come up with this. I mean, who could possibly conceive of such a thoroughly lucid, paradise-yielding idea???

Oh wait... every single fucking person, if their minds weren't torn to shit by sociopathic hypnotists.

And yet you didn't post it first.

hmmm

I was being sarcastic in support of your post. You'd think what you said what be so obvious it wouldn't need saying, but it does need saying, and you said it, so right on. Basically everything I do here is promoting what you said, but with 1,000 more words, trying to explain it from every possible angle hoping something will land.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The Constitution gives power for things like that to the State Legislatures.

And there is also the idea of local rule. If the people of Alabama want to ban abortion and SSM, why should people in NY care?

I take exception with the idea that a piece of parchment can "give power".

However, I agree that people in NY shouldn't have a say about what people in Alabama do. By this same logic, no individual or group should have a say about what any other individual or group does, as long as no one's fundamental rights are being violated. Obviously, this obviates democracy in any form.

It does give power to the various levels of government. Now If I said it gives "rights" you may have a better argument.

And the big "L" Libertarian in you of course sees it that way, but the small "l" libertarian in me sees the ability of people to consent to forms of government, such as we have, in a strict constructional federalist way (to me) of course.

When we say “power”, what is meant? It’s not merely the ability to do something. A document can’t establish that; the ability either exists or it does not.

So the document is trying to establish the right to do something. To accept this document, you must believe that man can create rights (via small-group consensus and writing things down, apparently). The ostensible idea here is not “We don’t have a right to do these things, but we’re going to do them anyway”; it’s “By consent of the governed we do have a right to do these things.”

Government is the claim that some may obtain rights in excess of what others have. Congress may lay and collect taxes, but you may not. And the only things that lay outside the realm of individual rights are individual “wrongs”, i.e. actions that infringe upon the rights of others. Government is literally, by definition, the right to do what is wrong; or license to act immorally.

People cannot change the nature of morality by consent. And especially not when they are “consenting” on behalf of others (an impossibility), which is precisely the situation here, since many do not consent but are made subject to government anyway.

Any moral government would be indistinguishable from any other group of individuals, since rights are equal across all of humanity. So you see that government’s only distinguishing characteristic is immorality, and it must be so in all cases; there is simply no way around this.

The document breaks down the powers given to the Federal government, those given to the States, and those retained by the People.

The rest of your post is basically just wishing reality wasn't reality.

Um... yeah, that doesn't address anything I've said. I've made concrete arguments that you should either refute or accept.

No one is denying the reality of the situation - the document says what it says, and people do what they do - but we're discussing the validity and morality of the situation so we can determine whether or not to support what's going on.

Unless, of course, you don't care about logic or morality, in which case simply admit that and I'll trouble you no further.

 

[Mac1958]

I find it very curious how people can just tow the party line in every single instance?

The tribal mentality is incredibly strong right now. Who knows what people REALLY think - they're going to protect their tribe no matter what.

It really seems like many people's self-esteem is now tied to defending their tribe. Weird.
.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I find it very curious how people can just tow the party line in every single instance?

The tribal mentality is incredibly strong right now. Who knows what people REALLY think - they're going to protect their tribe no matter what.

It really seems like many people's self-esteem is now tied to defending their tribe. Weird.
.

It makes sense if you realize that they have poor self-worth to begin with. We’re talking about people involved in politics, i.e. believers in governmental authority. Anyone who would willingly subject themselves to the rule of another has poor self-worth, and in fact, doesn’t even understand what they are on the most basic level. So it’s no wonder that they look for external identities to fill the void.

 

[hjmick]

I find it very curious how people can just tow the party line

I believe that would be "toe the party line" derived from "toe the line"...

"Tow the party line" is an eggcorn.

 

[Pete7469]

I find it very curious how people can just tow the party line in every single instance?

The tribal mentality is incredibly strong right now. Who knows what people REALLY think - they're going to protect their tribe no matter what.

It really seems like many people's self-esteem is now tied to defending their tribe. Weird.
.

Um...

Who has defended "their tribe" on the "right" in this thread?

All I've seen is people discuss the fact they vote republicrat because the alternative is so repulsive but disagree on a variety of issues, and wrong winger trying to pull a fakey. There are plenty of dissenting voices that don't agree or dissent on "the right" and this thread proves it.

There has yet to be ONE bed wetter come along and even admit they believe abortion should be illegal while the woman is in natural labor after a full 9 month term.

The only "tribal" mentality and zealotry I can see is entirely on the left.

This thread might not be scientific proof, but lets see one moonbat, just fucking ONE even suggest any democrook policy has failed.

Furthermore who is "my tribe"? All you can say about me is that I vehemently oppose collectivists and authoritarians.

What "tribe" is that?


.

 

[Mac1958]

The only "tribal" mentality and zealotry I can see is entirely on the left.

From your perspective, that's all you would see. And the other members of your tribe would agree with you. That's how it works.
.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I'm pretty much on the same page as Pop23 here:

CDZ - If you . . .

What else is there?

 

[Pete7469]

The only "tribal" mentality and zealotry I can see is entirely on the left.

From your perspective, that's all you would see. And the other members of your tribe would agree with you. That's how it works.
.

Who is "my tribe"?

That is the question I asked, I didn't ask for your lofty condescending bullshit.


.

 

[rightwinger]

I find it very curious how people can just tow the party line

I believe that would be "toe the party line" derived from "toe the line"...

"Tow the party line" is an eggcorn.

I thought it was
“Tow the party lion”

 

[Mac1958]

The only "tribal" mentality and zealotry I can see is entirely on the left.

From your perspective, that's all you would see. And the other members of your tribe would agree with you. That's how it works.
.

Who is "my tribe"?

That is the question I asked, I didn't ask for your lofty condescending bullshit.


.

Okay, based on your own words, people who are against "collectivists and authoritarians."

Can you think of anyone else who would say that? Me too.

There ya go. If you're a fan of Trump, I believe you'd be comfortable with "Trumpster". Or "Patriot". Or whatever.
.

 

[Pete7469]

Okay, based on your own words, people who are against "collectivists and authoritarians."

Can you think of anyone else who would say that? Me too.

There ya go. If you're a fan of Trump, I believe you'd be comfortable with "Trumpster". Or "Patriot". Or whatever.
.

That's a pretty big "tribe".

It encompasses libertarians, although I don't cotton to libertarians on every issue.

It encompasses Republicrats to one degree or another, but they love them some authority on a lot of issues.

It encompasses even some democrooks, but they haven't pipped up yet for fear of outing themselves.

The "tribes" the OP is about are the DNC and GOP.

Those who side with the GOP only because they're repulsed by the DNC are not a "tribe", their points of view vary far too much. If anything they're "middle of the road".

The democrooks all appear to be far left loons.


.

 

[Mac1958]

Okay, based on your own words, people who are against "collectivists and authoritarians."

Can you think of anyone else who would say that? Me too.

There ya go. If you're a fan of Trump, I believe you'd be comfortable with "Trumpster". Or "Patriot". Or whatever.
.

That's a pretty big "tribe".

It encompasses libertarians, although I don't cotton to libertarians on every issue.

It encompasses Republicrats to one degree or another, but they love them some authority on a lot of issues.

It encompasses even some democrooks, but they haven't pipped up yet for fear of outing themselves.

The "tribes" the OP is about are the DNC and GOP.

Those who side with the GOP only because they're repulsed by the DNC are not a "tribe", their points of view vary far too much. If anything they're "middle of the road".

The democrooks all appear to be far left loons.


.

What I'm seeing is that each party has two primary components. Layers can be found within each, of course, but in general, each has two.

The GOP has the Trump fans and the more traditional Republicans, the people who Trump fans will call RINOs. The Trump fans have taken over the party.

The Democrats have the more traditional liberals and the Regressive Leftists, who are illiberal leftist authoritarians. The Regressives have taken over the party.

The tribal behaviors are most obvious in the Trump fans and the Regressives. It's the old Political Horseshoe theory, in which the ends of the spectrum are closer to each other than they are to the middle. And trying to communicate with either is terribly difficult.
.

 

[sparky]

There isn't a dif betwixt the Dems and the Reps , they banter to keep up appearances

We've a plutocracy cloaked in the illusion of choice

So few can see past this systemic rot , most sign onto some wedge issue they foist upon us.

Sorry, but partism isn't my strong point



have fun


~S~

 

[Pete7469]

What I'm seeing is that each party has two primary components. Layers can be found within each, of course, but in general, each has two.

The GOP has the Trump fans and the more traditional Republicans, the people who Trump fans will call RINOs. The Trump fans have taken over the party.

The Democrats have the more traditional liberals and the Regressive Leftists, who are illiberal leftist authoritarians. The Regressives have taken over the party.

The tribal behaviors are most obvious in the Trump fans and the Regressives. It's the old Political Horseshoe theory, in which the ends of the spectrum are closer to each other than they are to the middle. And trying to communicate with either is terribly difficult.
.

I don't cotton to the horseshit theory. It makes no sense. In no way were nazis EVER "right wing". They were basically commies that wanted krauts to rule the world rather than muscovites.

I prefer the linear spectrum. It makes sense. Like right vs. wrong. You know it's wrong to steal, to lie, to murder.

There is a right or wrong on every issue. Leftist "scholars" who peddle circular "logic" love to promote this asinine "spectrum"....

The reason for that is because they don't want a "right vs. wrong" perspective to be used in politics. It's totally asinine to conclude that ANARCHY is a "far left" concept. How can COMMUNISM exist without massive despotic authority, regulation and rationing? How can slavery exist if there are no laws that dictate slaves are not allowed to kill their masters and walk away?

Perhaps that's why you find it so hard to communicate with "wingers" because you refuse to acknowledge what is right or wrong.


.

 

[Mac1958]

There is a right or wrong on every issue.

Of course, that isn't true. On some issues we can all agree there is a right and a wrong, but on other issues it's simply a matter of opinion. But convincing yourself that the world is simple and binary certainly does excuse you from having to do the heavy lifting of communicating with others, considering and analyzing other ideas or new ideas, and -- horror of horrors -- occasionally changing your mind or admitting you were wrong.

There is fact, and there is opinion. Two different things.

Wingers confuse fact with opinion because they are intellectually lazy and terribly narcissistic. I'm always right, you're always wrong. I don't want to hear it. I will not even consider anything else. That's it. My side has all the answers. No listening, no thinking, just attacking.

Then they exist in their ideological vacuums, their echo chambers, and harden themselves further to their little worlds. The internet has been great for that.
.

 

[ChrisL]

I find it very curious how people can just tow the party line

I believe that would be "toe the party line" derived from "toe the line"...

"Tow the party line" is an eggcorn.

I thought it was
“Tow the party lion”

I did think it was "tow the party line." It makes more sense than "toe the party line." Toeing the line would mean standing ON the line. Towing the line would mean pulling the line, which is much more descriptive as to what you leftists do.

 

[ChrisL]

There is a right or wrong on every issue.

Of course, that isn't true. On some issues we can all agree there is a right and a wrong, but on other issues it's simply a matter of opinion. But convincing yourself that the world is simple and binary certainly does excuse you from having to do the heavy lifting of communicating with others, considering and analyzing other ideas or new ideas, and -- horror of horrors -- occasionally changing your mind or admitting you were wrong.

There is fact, and there is opinion. Two different things.

Wingers confuse fact with opinion because they are intellectually lazy and terribly narcissistic. I'm always right, you're always wrong. I don't want to hear it. I will not even consider anything else. That's it. My side has all the answers. No listening, no thinking, just attacking.

Then they exist in their ideological vacuums, their echo chambers, and harden themselves further to their little worlds. The internet has been great for that.
.

Well, when someone is USUALLY wrong, it only makes sense that you would consider them pretty much ALWAYS wrong.

When have the leftists convinced you that your views are wrong and that you should adopt their views? Over which issues?

 

[ChrisL]

There isn't a dif betwixt the Dems and the Reps , they banter to keep up appearances

We've a plutocracy cloaked in the illusion of choice

So few can see past this systemic rot , most sign onto some wedge issue they foist upon us.

Sorry, but partism isn't my strong point



have fun


~S~

Well, there are some differences. If there were no differences, then people wouldn't be gnashing teeth over Trump, am I right?