What does it mean to "love your country"?

[MarathonMike]

In keeping with our duty to establish a firm basis for supporting this system (after all, we are subjecting ourselves, our children, our neighbors, and the world at large to the immense power of this government), the following point, which I will repeat, must be addressed directly; as it is the bedrock upon which the validity of the system is founded:

"...could you explain how government gets its power? Most would say “from the people”, but do the people have these powers, such that they may give them to government? You may give your consent for them to rule you, but can you give your consent for them to rule me? How does one validly delegate a right he doesn’t have to begin with? Can I delegate the right for my brother to paint your house pink? If not, why not? Because I don’t have that right, and neither does he. The delegation must be rooted in a right actually possessed - so who among us has the right to personally claim a portion of their neighbor’s labor such that they may choose a delegate to execute that right?"

Did we have a right to push the Indians off of their ancestral lands and onto reservations? Yes. That is the right of war and the Indians were the conquered nation. Did we have a right to fight England and declare our independence from them? It depends what side you were on at the time. We certainly thought so. Did the Founding Fathers have the right to grant powers to a newly formed government that they themselves didn't have? Yes because they were creating a country. And as in any human creation it is the right of the originator(s) to design it any way he wants. "Rights" are a very broad and abstract concept. There are basic human rights, rights to property, rights to privacy, rights of rescission, etc etc. Every modern society defines a set of rights and laws for it's citizens. This is a necessity because humans are inherently wicked. We are fortunate to have been granted a large set of rights and fairly non-intrusive laws. By contrast citizens of North Korea have a very small set of rights and extremely oppressive laws.

Ok, so we have:

-The "right of war".
-The right to declare independence is dependent upon which side you're on.
-The right to grant powers you don't have being valid if you're creating a country.
-The right of "originators" to design anything they want.
-Society defining rights.
-People (government) granting rights to other people.

Are you comfortable with this as representative of your position so far? I think this discussion is hampered by the fact that we have not established a definition of rights, which necessarily requires a statement as to their origin. So what do you cite as the origin or rights?

As a side note, I want to address the notion that "Humans are inherently wicked". I'm not sure how broad your definition of "wicked" is, but is this consistent with your first-hand experience? When you are at a concert, or at the mall, or shopping at the grocery store, do you experience expressions of this wickedness? Do you consider yourself to be wicked? Howso?

And if humans are inherently wicked, how do you suppose that a rational solution to that problem is to create a seat of immense power and place some from among that wicked throng upon it? Wouldn't this only magnify their wickedness? Wouldn't it be better to keep the playing field level so that everyone at least has a fighting chance?[/QUOTE]
I did not word my statement on human wickedness very well. I did not mean to say that every human is wicked I do not believe that at all. But in any group, large or small there will be those who lie, cheat, steal, abuse or kill. That is why I believe there has to be an agreed upon set of laws and some sort of enforcement to insure the laws are followed.

Yes I agree that with the creation of a 'seat of power' there is the risk of corruption. Power corrupts. But again I ask you, what is your alternative? A level playing field meaning "work it out amongst yourselves"? Then that by default invokes the law of "might makes right". I suppose we could live like Western settlers in the 1800s but that isn't a life that many people would want.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Thank you. What exactly do you mean when you say “country”?

Well, I'm not talking about blue grass.

The country you're a citizen of.

So the citizenship is the key factor. When we say “country” we’re talking about which government you live under, so “embracing the countries values” means embracing it’s government?

If this is so, how can we divorce partisan politics from love of country, when it is so intrinsically related to how this country’s government works? Isn’t this partisanship included in its “values”?

It would seem that party politics is more strongly valued than nebulous concepts of truth and justice, since there is far more of the former present than the latter.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

In keeping with our duty to establish a firm basis for supporting this system (after all, we are subjecting ourselves, our children, our neighbors, and the world at large to the immense power of this government), the following point, which I will repeat, must be addressed directly; as it is the bedrock upon which the validity of the system is founded:

"...could you explain how government gets its power? Most would say “from the people”, but do the people have these powers, such that they may give them to government? You may give your consent for them to rule you, but can you give your consent for them to rule me? How does one validly delegate a right he doesn’t have to begin with? Can I delegate the right for my brother to paint your house pink? If not, why not? Because I don’t have that right, and neither does he. The delegation must be rooted in a right actually possessed - so who among us has the right to personally claim a portion of their neighbor’s labor such that they may choose a delegate to execute that right?"

Did we have a right to push the Indians off of their ancestral lands and onto reservations? Yes. That is the right of war and the Indians were the conquered nation. Did we have a right to fight England and declare our independence from them? It depends what side you were on at the time. We certainly thought so. Did the Founding Fathers have the right to grant powers to a newly formed government that they themselves didn't have? Yes because they were creating a country. And as in any human creation it is the right of the originator(s) to design it any way he wants. "Rights" are a very broad and abstract concept. There are basic human rights, rights to property, rights to privacy, rights of rescission, etc etc. Every modern society defines a set of rights and laws for it's citizens. This is a necessity because humans are inherently wicked. We are fortunate to have been granted a large set of rights and fairly non-intrusive laws. By contrast citizens of North Korea have a very small set of rights and extremely oppressive laws.

Ok, so we have:

-The "right of war".
-The right to declare independence is dependent upon which side you're on.
-The right to grant powers you don't have being valid if you're creating a country.
-The right of "originators" to design anything they want.
-Society defining rights.
-People (government) granting rights to other people.

Are you comfortable with this as representative of your position so far? I think this discussion is hampered by the fact that we have not established a definition of rights, which necessarily requires a statement as to their origin. So what do you cite as the origin or rights?

As a side note, I want to address the notion that "Humans are inherently wicked". I'm not sure how broad your definition of "wicked" is, but is this consistent with your first-hand experience? When you are at a concert, or at the mall, or shopping at the grocery store, do you experience expressions of this wickedness? Do you consider yourself to be wicked? Howso?

And if humans are inherently wicked, how do you suppose that a rational solution to that problem is to create a seat of immense power and place some from among that wicked throng upon it? Wouldn't this only magnify their wickedness? Wouldn't it be better to keep the playing field level so that everyone at least has a fighting chance?

I did not word my statement on human wickedness very well. I did not mean to say that every human is wicked I do not believe that at all. But in any group, large or small there will be those who lie, cheat, steal, abuse or kill. That is why I believe there has to be an agreed upon set of laws and some sort of enforcement to insure the laws are followed.

Yes I agree that with the creation of a 'seat of power' there is the risk of corruption. Power corrupts. But again I ask you, what is your alternative? A level playing field meaning "work it out amongst yourselves"? Then that by default invokes the law of "might makes right". I suppose we could live like Western settlers in the 1800s but that isn't a life that many people would want.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. I agree that (for the foreseeable future) there will always be some among us who act immorally. But man’s law opposing immorality is rather redundant, as the overwhelming majority of people agree that theft, murder, etc. are wrong, and believe they have a right to defend against it. Why do we need an authoritarian institution simply to defend people’s inherent rights? And aren’t we violating the very rights we’re claiming to protect when we “grant” government the exclusive “right” to claim a portion of the people’s labor under threat of violence via taxation? Or when we create all manner of other laws that have nothing to do with protecting inherent rights, and make them punishable by theft and violence?

An alternative would be an organized protection agency that does not claim exclusive rights. They are merely an extension of the people’s right of self-defense, not some immaginary super-human entity that has rights nobody else has. They cannot step between consenting adults interacting in non-harmful ways, because they are not an authority, but truly a delegate and a servant (very much unlike the people who claim these titles today). The seat of power is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is a corruption itself; representing an inequality and violation of rights. The alternative would be man’s natural, God-given freedom, and the right to protect that freedom.

Might makes right is what we have now, except that the might is monopolized by government and is immensely more powerful and dangerous, and this might is wielded by voting, instead of direct contact between aggressor and victim. You vote for substance X to be made illegal, or to have a portion of my labor spent on things you deem appropriate, then government comes and exacts might on me to fulfill your will. Nevermind the fact that you probably would not feel morally justified doing this to me personally, or feel sufficiently confident in your ability to do so, or motivated to do so if I wan’t bothering you. The result is way more coercion, as hundreds of millions who would not coerce on their own, do so through governmental law.

I think a modern version of the frontier society would be very appealling, since much of what people don’t like about that lifestyle is the perceived hardships, which modern wealth and technology largely eradicate.

 

[Billo_Really]

So the citizenship is the key factor. When we say “country” we’re talking about which government you live under, so “embracing the countries values” means embracing it’s government?

If this is so, how can we divorce partisan politics from love of country, when it is so intrinsically related to how this country’s government works? Isn’t this partisanship included in its “values”?

It would seem that party politics is more strongly valued than nebulous concepts of truth and justice, since there is far more of the former present than the latter.

You don't embrace the government, because the government only exists at the consent of the people it governs.

This country's values, are based on certain tenants:

• the rule of law
• checks and balances between the 3 branches of government
• due process
• a man is innocent, until proven guilty
• dissent
• tolerance of others
• majority rule
• equal representation
• truth
• separation of church and state

 

[Brian Blackwell]

So the citizenship is the key factor. When we say “country” we’re talking about which government you live under, so “embracing the countries values” means embracing it’s government?

If this is so, how can we divorce partisan politics from love of country, when it is so intrinsically related to how this country’s government works? Isn’t this partisanship included in its “values”?

It would seem that party politics is more strongly valued than nebulous concepts of truth and justice, since there is far more of the former present than the latter.

You don't embrace the government, because the government only exists at the consent of the people it governs.

This country's values, are based on certain tenants:

• the rule of law
• checks and balances between the 3 branches of government
• due process
• a man is innocent, until proven guilty
• dissent
• tolerance of others
• majority rule
• equal representation
• truth
• separation of church and state

Thank you for breaking it down so succinctly. But don’t you think this is largely just rhetoric? I see so much dissonance and inconsistency with reality in this...

The rule of law - based on what? You say consent of the governed, but this is not true. There is a portion of the population that does not consent at all, but they are still governed, and their subjugation is justified with the oxymoronic notion of “implied consent”. But one cannot be considered to imply their consent if they never agreed to the terms of what constitutes the implication.

If I say, “by walking down my street, you imply your consent to be charged a $5 fee by me personally, and to be caged in my basement for a week if you fail to pay”, and you never agree to these terms, would walking down my street truly imply consent? The arrangement is entirely one-sided. What if the person expressly denies consent, can they still be said to imply it?

Implied consent must be rooted in expressed consent. I must agree to the terms, otherwise it’s just something the bully makes up, and I am subject to, whether I consent or not. Consent must be given freely, and can be denied or revoked by the person in question. We understand this clearly in cases of rape, but seem to forget it when talking about government.

Let’s deal with this first before moving on to other topics on the list.

 

[Billo_Really]

Thank you for breaking it down so succinctly. But don’t you think this is largely just rhetoric? I see so much dissonance and inconsistency with reality in this...

The rule of law - based on what? You say consent of the governed, but this is not true. There is a portion of the population that does not consent at all, but they are still governed, and their subjugation is justified with the oxymoronic notion of “implied consent”. But one cannot be considered to imply their consent if they never agreed to the terms of what constitutes the implication.

If I say, “by walking down my street, you imply your consent to be charged a $5 fee by me personally, and to be caged in my basement for a week if you fail to pay”, and you never agree to these terms, would walking down my street truly imply consent? The arrangement is entirely one-sided. What if the person expressly denies consent, can they still be said to imply it?

Implied consent must be rooted in expressed consent. I must agree to the terms, otherwise it’s just something the bully makes up, and I am subject to, whether I consent or not. Consent must be given freely, and can be denied or revoked by the person in question. We understand this clearly in cases of rape, but seem to forget it when talking about government.

Let’s deal with this first before moving on to other topics on the list.

A street is public property. Only the authority having jurisdiction can charge a fee (or toll). Now, if you wanted to walk across my front lawn, then the cost will be $5 (one way). However, I could not lock you in my basement, because I would be denying you your Constitutional rights. One of this country's biggest values is "freedom". You have the freedom to do whatever you want, as long as you don't break the law or infringe upon the rights of others.

The rule of law is based on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Being an American and loving this country, means you believe in settling your differences with others, peacefully. And it also means respecting the different opinions of others.

But you are right, in practice, we fall far short of the ideal. Republicans are liars; Democrats are pussy's and average Americans care about only the things that are in their comfort zone.

Loving your country, means doing things for the sake of duty and not personal profit and gain. Unfortunately, doing things for the sake of duty, is too much work. To the point that we are no longer a democratic republic. We are a corporate oligarchy and have been grouped into 3 separate categories:

1. consumer
2. warrior
3. criminal

 

[9thIDdoc]

I understand the purported function of the Constitution, but does the Constitution actually do that?

Yes, to a rather amazing (and hopefully growing) extent it does. It is the law intended to govern government and that is the critical importance of everyone being sworn to defend it instead of the government. Government officials can and should be held accountable to the law the same as everyone else. Yes there is still corruption and probably always will be. But whose fault is that? Just as We the People share responsibility for what our Nation does overseas we also share it for what it does here at home. If we don't care enough to see that the law is enforced it is the fault of neither the Constitution nor the system.

Freedom does not have degrees .
Freedom does not include murdering people because...

Either freedom can-and sometimes should-be restricted or it can't. Can't have it both ways.
You seem to find defensive violence (self defense) acceptable but offensive and defensive are types of tactics or strategy; not types of violence and one is easily mistaken or misrepresented as the other. I see The War on Terror as self defense and entirely justified as were our attacks on Japan and Germany during WWII. War is a classic example of the people of a nation being held responsible for the actions of their government.

Yes, self-defense and offensive violence are both acts of physical force, but so is pushing a couch against a wall. To compare them on that basis alone ignores other qualities that confirm differentiation. Offensive force is an act of targeted aggression with the intent of violating another person's "God-given" "unalienable" rights. Defensive force is a protection of those rights. These are two very different actions from a moral perspective. Calling them tactics or strategies is fine, as long as you're acknowledging the moral difference between such strategies. And of course you would certainly do so if you were both mugged at gunpoint, and successfully defended against that mugging by an armed neighbor in the same encounter. You would say the mugger did something wrong, and the neighbor did something right. This distinction is self-evident and innate.

Did you understand my argument about conflicting freedoms being unable to co-exist? Your freedom to shoot your gun ends at the point where your bullets would touch my skin (or my property, which is an extension of me by way of its connection to my labor). Were your freedom able to cross that boundary, it would limit or deny my freedom. Freedom is one thing, despite our use of the terms "yours" and "mine" (which merely describe instances of its expression). Freedom cannot impose upon itself and still be freedom. This is a naturally-occurring limitation on freedom, just as gravity and other forces have naturally-occurring limitations. Man does not devise this limitation; it exists by natural and logical necessity.

The War on Terror is not self-defense, in fact it has no valid rationale whatsoever, having no defined parameters. How do you win this war? You cannot, and that's precisely the point of it. War profiteers have established an excuse for unending opportunity, and the nation have been made to by into this racket by the events of 9/11. Self-defense would have been scrambling jets to take out those hijacked planes, but where were the jets on that fateful morning? You may want to look into that for yourself. Self-defense requires a present, active attacker. It is not self-defense to preemptively attack another country, killing thousands of innocent people who have not threatened us at all. Think about how politicians obfuscate ideas and warp words to have alternate - even opposite - meanings. Freedom is slavery, war is peace... where have I heard this before?

Carefully examine this reply to my question, "Does the Constitution actually do what it's intended to do?":

"Yes, to a rather amazing (and hopefully growing) extent it does. It is the law intended to govern government and that is the critical importance of everyone being sworn to defend it instead of the government. Government officials can and should be held accountable to the law the same as everyone else."

Intentions, possibilities, supplications... Where does this demonstrate that it actually serves the cited purpose? Do you see how we're made to believe that because of this intent being written somewhere, or people taking oaths to that effect, that we actually live under this system? We have the intent and the reality scrambled in our minds because all the political and educational rhetoric pounds us with this idea from the time we're old enough to talk. It is not so. A piece of parchment does nothing to assure this intent; an oath does nothing. The reality is that our government does not exist under this limitation any more than Stalin was bound by his (1936 Soviet Constitution - Wikipedia).

The Supreme Court is government, not a neutral third party. So government is expected to limit itself. A bit of a conflict of interests, no? Sometimes it erects the facade that it is keeping congress in check, because if it didn't, we'd have ourtight revolution. But by degrees, by a tip-toe effect, it permits a distancing from those originating ideals; a process slow enough as to escape the people's awareness (or at least their resistance). If you're really interested in evaluating the strength of the culturally-sanctioned, civics class position on this matter, perhaps you will be willing to consider the following two videos at your leisure:

I did in fact watch the second video (couldn't get sound on the first) and found it interesting if long. Used up what time I have to spend online at the moment. Will comment tomorrow.

OK, the video. I expected an example of blatant left wing propaganda and of course it is indeed a propaganda piece but I was pleasantly surprised to find that it contains a large amount of truth along with the expected bullshit. Propaganda but good propaganda.

Yes, self-defense and offensive violence are both acts of physical force, but so is pushing a couch against a wall. To compare them on that basis alone ignores other qualities that confirm differentiation. Offensive force is an act of targeted aggression with the intent of violating another person's "God-given" "unalienable" rights. Defensive force is a protection of those rights. These are two very different actions from a moral perspective.

Agreed but it must be remembered there are as many different moral perspectives as there are people.
Again: rights are neither "innate" "unalienable" nor "God given". Throughout history individual rights have been few and far between. In America our rights were fought for and were conceived in suffering and death and more suffering and death have been required to keep them. They are our heritage earned-and the down payment made-by those Americans who came before us. They are what make us "WE the People".

"Did you understand my argument about conflicting freedoms being unable to co-exist?"
Yes. Do you realize that is just another way of saying freedoms can be restricted?

Intentions, possibilities, supplications... Where does this demonstrate that it actually serves the cited purpose?

The Constitution is not expected to demonstrate anything any more than a blueprint is expected to actually build a building. Our American culture-like all cultures-is in a state of constant flux. Change is the only constant. Whether the changes so far have been for the better or the worse over all is a matter of opinion. It is up to We the People (including government) to follow the blueprint of the Constitution.

"This is a naturally-occurring limitation on freedom, just as gravity and other forces have naturally-occurring limitations. Man does not devise this limitation; it exists by natural and logical necessity."

No. Freedom is a human concept; not a natural force.

"...made to by into this racket by the events of 9/11. Self-defense would have been scrambling jets to take out those hijacked planes, but where were the jets on that fateful morning?"

You would consider attacking friendly aircraft X 4 and killing innocent American civilians and violating all of their Constitutional rights self defense? Apparently we have discovered another area where you are entirely clueless.

 

[MarathonMike]

In keeping with our duty to establish a firm basis for supporting this system (after all, we are subjecting ourselves, our children, our neighbors, and the world at large to the immense power of this government), the following point, which I will repeat, must be addressed directly; as it is the bedrock upon which the validity of the system is founded:

"...could you explain how government gets its power? Most would say “from the people”, but do the people have these powers, such that they may give them to government? You may give your consent for them to rule you, but can you give your consent for them to rule me? How does one validly delegate a right he doesn’t have to begin with? Can I delegate the right for my brother to paint your house pink? If not, why not? Because I don’t have that right, and neither does he. The delegation must be rooted in a right actually possessed - so who among us has the right to personally claim a portion of their neighbor’s labor such that they may choose a delegate to execute that right?"

Did we have a right to push the Indians off of their ancestral lands and onto reservations? Yes. That is the right of war and the Indians were the conquered nation. Did we have a right to fight England and declare our independence from them? It depends what side you were on at the time. We certainly thought so. Did the Founding Fathers have the right to grant powers to a newly formed government that they themselves didn't have? Yes because they were creating a country. And as in any human creation it is the right of the originator(s) to design it any way he wants. "Rights" are a very broad and abstract concept. There are basic human rights, rights to property, rights to privacy, rights of rescission, etc etc. Every modern society defines a set of rights and laws for it's citizens. This is a necessity because humans are inherently wicked. We are fortunate to have been granted a large set of rights and fairly non-intrusive laws. By contrast citizens of North Korea have a very small set of rights and extremely oppressive laws.

Ok, so we have:

-The "right of war".
-The right to declare independence is dependent upon which side you're on.
-The right to grant powers you don't have being valid if you're creating a country.
-The right of "originators" to design anything they want.
-Society defining rights.
-People (government) granting rights to other people.

Are you comfortable with this as representative of your position so far? I think this discussion is hampered by the fact that we have not established a definition of rights, which necessarily requires a statement as to their origin. So what do you cite as the origin or rights?

As a side note, I want to address the notion that "Humans are inherently wicked". I'm not sure how broad your definition of "wicked" is, but is this consistent with your first-hand experience? When you are at a concert, or at the mall, or shopping at the grocery store, do you experience expressions of this wickedness? Do you consider yourself to be wicked? Howso?

And if humans are inherently wicked, how do you suppose that a rational solution to that problem is to create a seat of immense power and place some from among that wicked throng upon it? Wouldn't this only magnify their wickedness? Wouldn't it be better to keep the playing field level so that everyone at least has a fighting chance?

I did not word my statement on human wickedness very well. I did not mean to say that every human is wicked I do not believe that at all. But in any group, large or small there will be those who lie, cheat, steal, abuse or kill. That is why I believe there has to be an agreed upon set of laws and some sort of enforcement to insure the laws are followed.

Yes I agree that with the creation of a 'seat of power' there is the risk of corruption. Power corrupts. But again I ask you, what is your alternative? A level playing field meaning "work it out amongst yourselves"? Then that by default invokes the law of "might makes right". I suppose we could live like Western settlers in the 1800s but that isn't a life that many people would want.

Fair enough. I agree that (for the foreseeable future) there will always be some among us who act immorally. But man’s law opposing immorality is rather redundant, as the overwhelming majority of people agree that theft, murder, etc. are wrong, and believe they have a right to defend against it. Why do we need an authoritarian institution simply to defend people’s inherent rights? And aren’t we violating the very rights we’re claiming to protect when we “grant” government the exclusive “right” to claim a portion of the people’s labor under threat of violence via taxation? Or when we create all manner of other laws that have nothing to do with protecting inherent rights, and make them punishable by theft and violence?

An alternative would be an organized protection agency that does not claim exclusive rights. They are merely an extension of the people’s right of self-defense, not some immaginary super-human entity that has rights nobody else has. They cannot step between consenting adults interacting in non-harmful ways, because they are not an authority, but truly a delegate and a servant (very much unlike the people who claim these titles today). The seat of power is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is a corruption itself; representing an inequality and violation of rights. The alternative would be man’s natural, God-given freedom, and the right to protect that freedom.

Might makes right is what we have now, except that the might is monopolized by government and is immensely more powerful and dangerous, and this might is wielded by voting, instead of direct contact between aggressor and victim. You vote for substance X to be made illegal, or to have a portion of my labor spent on things you deem appropriate, then government comes and exacts might on me to fulfill your will. Nevermind the fact that you probably would not feel morally justified doing this to me personally, or feel sufficiently confident in your ability to do so, or motivated to do so if I wan’t bothering you. The result is way more coercion, as hundreds of millions who would not coerce on their own, do so through governmental law.

I think a modern version of the frontier society would be very appealling, since much of what people don’t like about that lifestyle is the perceived hardships, which modern wealth and technology largely eradicate.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. Might makes right is what humans always default to in the absence of government. Even you are aknowledging the need for some sort of protection agency
and as soon as you have created that, you have seat of power that is corruptable, right? There will always be this give and take between the need for authority and reigning in that authority. That is why the Founding Fathers took great care in their design of the Constitution to have checks and balances, and to give citizens the right to bear arms against the possibility of government gone bad. It has worked remarkably well for 200 hundred years, unfortunately the balance of power within the government now has essentially been destroyed by a politically slanted Judicial branch.

As I've stated humans will always be flawed and create flawed agencies and governments but it is IMO necessary because people will always have their freedoms infringed upon by the more unethical and violent members of society.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

In keeping with our duty to establish a firm basis for supporting this system (after all, we are subjecting ourselves, our children, our neighbors, and the world at large to the immense power of this government), the following point, which I will repeat, must be addressed directly; as it is the bedrock upon which the validity of the system is founded:

"...could you explain how government gets its power? Most would say “from the people”, but do the people have these powers, such that they may give them to government? You may give your consent for them to rule you, but can you give your consent for them to rule me? How does one validly delegate a right he doesn’t have to begin with? Can I delegate the right for my brother to paint your house pink? If not, why not? Because I don’t have that right, and neither does he. The delegation must be rooted in a right actually possessed - so who among us has the right to personally claim a portion of their neighbor’s labor such that they may choose a delegate to execute that right?"

Did we have a right to push the Indians off of their ancestral lands and onto reservations? Yes. That is the right of war and the Indians were the conquered nation. Did we have a right to fight England and declare our independence from them? It depends what side you were on at the time. We certainly thought so. Did the Founding Fathers have the right to grant powers to a newly formed government that they themselves didn't have? Yes because they were creating a country. And as in any human creation it is the right of the originator(s) to design it any way he wants. "Rights" are a very broad and abstract concept. There are basic human rights, rights to property, rights to privacy, rights of rescission, etc etc. Every modern society defines a set of rights and laws for it's citizens. This is a necessity because humans are inherently wicked. We are fortunate to have been granted a large set of rights and fairly non-intrusive laws. By contrast citizens of North Korea have a very small set of rights and extremely oppressive laws.

Ok, so we have:

-The "right of war".
-The right to declare independence is dependent upon which side you're on.
-The right to grant powers you don't have being valid if you're creating a country.
-The right of "originators" to design anything they want.
-Society defining rights.
-People (government) granting rights to other people.

Are you comfortable with this as representative of your position so far? I think this discussion is hampered by the fact that we have not established a definition of rights, which necessarily requires a statement as to their origin. So what do you cite as the origin or rights?

As a side note, I want to address the notion that "Humans are inherently wicked". I'm not sure how broad your definition of "wicked" is, but is this consistent with your first-hand experience? When you are at a concert, or at the mall, or shopping at the grocery store, do you experience expressions of this wickedness? Do you consider yourself to be wicked? Howso?

And if humans are inherently wicked, how do you suppose that a rational solution to that problem is to create a seat of immense power and place some from among that wicked throng upon it? Wouldn't this only magnify their wickedness? Wouldn't it be better to keep the playing field level so that everyone at least has a fighting chance?

I did not word my statement on human wickedness very well. I did not mean to say that every human is wicked I do not believe that at all. But in any group, large or small there will be those who lie, cheat, steal, abuse or kill. That is why I believe there has to be an agreed upon set of laws and some sort of enforcement to insure the laws are followed.

Yes I agree that with the creation of a 'seat of power' there is the risk of corruption. Power corrupts. But again I ask you, what is your alternative? A level playing field meaning "work it out amongst yourselves"? Then that by default invokes the law of "might makes right". I suppose we could live like Western settlers in the 1800s but that isn't a life that many people would want.

Fair enough. I agree that (for the foreseeable future) there will always be some among us who act immorally. But man’s law opposing immorality is rather redundant, as the overwhelming majority of people agree that theft, murder, etc. are wrong, and believe they have a right to defend against it. Why do we need an authoritarian institution simply to defend people’s inherent rights? And aren’t we violating the very rights we’re claiming to protect when we “grant” government the exclusive “right” to claim a portion of the people’s labor under threat of violence via taxation? Or when we create all manner of other laws that have nothing to do with protecting inherent rights, and make them punishable by theft and violence?

An alternative would be an organized protection agency that does not claim exclusive rights. They are merely an extension of the people’s right of self-defense, not some immaginary super-human entity that has rights nobody else has. They cannot step between consenting adults interacting in non-harmful ways, because they are not an authority, but truly a delegate and a servant (very much unlike the people who claim these titles today). The seat of power is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is a corruption itself; representing an inequality and violation of rights. The alternative would be man’s natural, God-given freedom, and the right to protect that freedom.

Might makes right is what we have now, except that the might is monopolized by government and is immensely more powerful and dangerous, and this might is wielded by voting, instead of direct contact between aggressor and victim. You vote for substance X to be made illegal, or to have a portion of my labor spent on things you deem appropriate, then government comes and exacts might on me to fulfill your will. Nevermind the fact that you probably would not feel morally justified doing this to me personally, or feel sufficiently confident in your ability to do so, or motivated to do so if I wan’t bothering you. The result is way more coercion, as hundreds of millions who would not coerce on their own, do so through governmental law.

I think a modern version of the frontier society would be very appealling, since much of what people don’t like about that lifestyle is the perceived hardships, which modern wealth and technology largely eradicate.

I disagree. Might makes right is what humans always default to in the absence of government. Even you are aknowledging the need for some sort of protection agency
and as soon as you have created that, you have seat of power that is corruptable, right? There will always be this give and take between the need for authority and reigning in that authority. That is why the Founding Fathers took great care in their design of the Constitution to have checks and balances, and to give citizens the right to bear arms against the possibility of government gone bad. It has worked remarkably well for 200 hundred years, unfortunately the balance of power within the government now has essentially been destroyed by a politically slanted Judicial branch.

As I've stated humans will always be flawed and create flawed agencies and governments but it is IMO necessary because people will always have their freedoms infringed upon by the more unethical and violent members of society.[/QUOTE]

Well wait, a private protection agency is not a corruptible seat of power born of a necessity for “authority”. It is not an authority, and does not have any power in excess of what its customers have. It’s like having a bodyguard - you delegate to him your right of self-defense. This delegation is valid because it is rooted in your right.

This is not what government is. You “delegate” to Congress rights that you don’t have. This is not a valid delegation. You do not have the right to make law for your neighbors, or to extort a portion of the fruit of their labor. You commit this immoral act by proxy via this invalid delegation. That’s the key problem here.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I understand the purported function of the Constitution, but does the Constitution actually do that?

Yes, to a rather amazing (and hopefully growing) extent it does. It is the law intended to govern government and that is the critical importance of everyone being sworn to defend it instead of the government. Government officials can and should be held accountable to the law the same as everyone else. Yes there is still corruption and probably always will be. But whose fault is that? Just as We the People share responsibility for what our Nation does overseas we also share it for what it does here at home. If we don't care enough to see that the law is enforced it is the fault of neither the Constitution nor the system.

Freedom does not have degrees .
Freedom does not include murdering people because...

Either freedom can-and sometimes should-be restricted or it can't. Can't have it both ways.
You seem to find defensive violence (self defense) acceptable but offensive and defensive are types of tactics or strategy; not types of violence and one is easily mistaken or misrepresented as the other. I see The War on Terror as self defense and entirely justified as were our attacks on Japan and Germany during WWII. War is a classic example of the people of a nation being held responsible for the actions of their government.

Yes, self-defense and offensive violence are both acts of physical force, but so is pushing a couch against a wall. To compare them on that basis alone ignores other qualities that confirm differentiation. Offensive force is an act of targeted aggression with the intent of violating another person's "God-given" "unalienable" rights. Defensive force is a protection of those rights. These are two very different actions from a moral perspective. Calling them tactics or strategies is fine, as long as you're acknowledging the moral difference between such strategies. And of course you would certainly do so if you were both mugged at gunpoint, and successfully defended against that mugging by an armed neighbor in the same encounter. You would say the mugger did something wrong, and the neighbor did something right. This distinction is self-evident and innate.

Did you understand my argument about conflicting freedoms being unable to co-exist? Your freedom to shoot your gun ends at the point where your bullets would touch my skin (or my property, which is an extension of me by way of its connection to my labor). Were your freedom able to cross that boundary, it would limit or deny my freedom. Freedom is one thing, despite our use of the terms "yours" and "mine" (which merely describe instances of its expression). Freedom cannot impose upon itself and still be freedom. This is a naturally-occurring limitation on freedom, just as gravity and other forces have naturally-occurring limitations. Man does not devise this limitation; it exists by natural and logical necessity.

The War on Terror is not self-defense, in fact it has no valid rationale whatsoever, having no defined parameters. How do you win this war? You cannot, and that's precisely the point of it. War profiteers have established an excuse for unending opportunity, and the nation have been made to by into this racket by the events of 9/11. Self-defense would have been scrambling jets to take out those hijacked planes, but where were the jets on that fateful morning? You may want to look into that for yourself. Self-defense requires a present, active attacker. It is not self-defense to preemptively attack another country, killing thousands of innocent people who have not threatened us at all. Think about how politicians obfuscate ideas and warp words to have alternate - even opposite - meanings. Freedom is slavery, war is peace... where have I heard this before?

Carefully examine this reply to my question, "Does the Constitution actually do what it's intended to do?":

"Yes, to a rather amazing (and hopefully growing) extent it does. It is the law intended to govern government and that is the critical importance of everyone being sworn to defend it instead of the government. Government officials can and should be held accountable to the law the same as everyone else."

Intentions, possibilities, supplications... Where does this demonstrate that it actually serves the cited purpose? Do you see how we're made to believe that because of this intent being written somewhere, or people taking oaths to that effect, that we actually live under this system? We have the intent and the reality scrambled in our minds because all the political and educational rhetoric pounds us with this idea from the time we're old enough to talk. It is not so. A piece of parchment does nothing to assure this intent; an oath does nothing. The reality is that our government does not exist under this limitation any more than Stalin was bound by his (1936 Soviet Constitution - Wikipedia).

The Supreme Court is government, not a neutral third party. So government is expected to limit itself. A bit of a conflict of interests, no? Sometimes it erects the facade that it is keeping congress in check, because if it didn't, we'd have ourtight revolution. But by degrees, by a tip-toe effect, it permits a distancing from those originating ideals; a process slow enough as to escape the people's awareness (or at least their resistance). If you're really interested in evaluating the strength of the culturally-sanctioned, civics class position on this matter, perhaps you will be willing to consider the following two videos at your leisure:

I did in fact watch the second video (couldn't get sound on the first) and found it interesting if long. Used up what time I have to spend online at the moment. Will comment tomorrow.

OK, the video. I expected an example of blatant left wing propaganda and of course it is indeed a propaganda piece but I was pleasantly surprised to find that it contains a large amount of truth along with the expected bullshit. Propaganda but good propaganda.

Yes, self-defense and offensive violence are both acts of physical force, but so is pushing a couch against a wall. To compare them on that basis alone ignores other qualities that confirm differentiation. Offensive force is an act of targeted aggression with the intent of violating another person's "God-given" "unalienable" rights. Defensive force is a protection of those rights. These are two very different actions from a moral perspective.

Agreed but it must be remembered there are as many different moral perspectives as there are people.
Again: rights are neither "innate" "unalienable" nor "God given". Throughout history individual rights have been few and far between. In America our rights were fought for and were conceived in suffering and death and more suffering and death have been required to keep them. They are our heritage earned-and the down payment made-by those Americans who came before us. They are what make us "WE the People".

"Did you understand my argument about conflicting freedoms being unable to co-exist?"
Yes. Do you realize that is just another way of saying freedoms can be restricted?

Intentions, possibilities, supplications... Where does this demonstrate that it actually serves the cited purpose?

The Constitution is not expected to demonstrate anything any more than a blueprint is expected to actually build a building. Our American culture-like all cultures-is in a state of constant flux. Change is the only constant. Whether the changes so far have been for the better or the worse over all is a matter of opinion. It is up to We the People (including government) to follow the blueprint of the Constitution.

"This is a naturally-occurring limitation on freedom, just as gravity and other forces have naturally-occurring limitations. Man does not devise this limitation; it exists by natural and logical necessity."

No. Freedom is a human concept; not a natural force.

"...made to by into this racket by the events of 9/11. Self-defense would have been scrambling jets to take out those hijacked planes, but where were the jets on that fateful morning?"

You would consider attacking friendly aircraft X 4 and killing innocent American civilians and violating all of their Constitutional rights self defense? Apparently we have discovered another area where you are entirely clueless.

I really appreciate you taking the time to watch the video. It demonstrates an earnest willingness to investigate the topic with an open mind; which is a rather uncommon quality in political discourse. Many believe an open mind means accepting any opinion as valid, and this being obviously ridiculous, they close up. A true open mind is one that admits any information into its critical process, giving it a fair shake without turning it away at the door. You understand this, and I appreciate that quality of character - it is supremely important.

You noted the “expected bullshit”, so I’m curious to know where you took exception. I don’t expect you to cite specifics, but overall, what about the perspective did you find skewed?

Does the fact that rights have often been infringed upon and required defense necessarily imply that they are not innate? The only alternative to them being innate is that they are granted - which raises the question, “who grants them, and by what justification?” - or that they are arbitrary constructs created in the mind of man, which denies morality as anything more than preference. Is this your view of morality? Each person makes it up, and whoever can kill their way to the top is the winner?

My argument for the limitation on freedom does not admit that it can be justifiably restricted, as this would imply there is some variation as to the level of restriction, and that there is someone who may, or may not, restrict it. Instead, I have argued that freedom is limited as a law of nature, no different than gravity’s limitations. One does not have the power to restrict gravity, but its scope is naturally limited by the laws of the universe.

Man is born with free will - this inherent autonomy is the natural basis for freedom - and denying its expression will have adverse effects, just as ignoring gravity will. This is the cause of the “choas” we see in the world, as well as within the psyche of the individual. How can this innate autonomy be validly denied as an existent phenomenon? Who moves you, who thinks for you? We do not create this, it simply IS.

I did not mean to say that the Constitution failed to demonstrate something, but that your response failed to demonstrate how the Constitution is effective. It is merely a blueprint, a wish list, having no power over man. It cannot protect us against violations of freedom and the resultant adverse consequences. What’s more, it prescribes violation by asserting the power of Congress to justifiably do things that are immoral if the individual does them. It creates an inequality of rights by establishing governmental authority.

Authority is a falsehood. Representation is a falsehood. Neither can truly exist. Each man has equal rights and is responsible for his own actions.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Thank you for breaking it down so succinctly. But don’t you think this is largely just rhetoric? I see so much dissonance and inconsistency with reality in this...

The rule of law - based on what? You say consent of the governed, but this is not true. There is a portion of the population that does not consent at all, but they are still governed, and their subjugation is justified with the oxymoronic notion of “implied consent”. But one cannot be considered to imply their consent if they never agreed to the terms of what constitutes the implication.

If I say, “by walking down my street, you imply your consent to be charged a $5 fee by me personally, and to be caged in my basement for a week if you fail to pay”, and you never agree to these terms, would walking down my street truly imply consent? The arrangement is entirely one-sided. What if the person expressly denies consent, can they still be said to imply it?

Implied consent must be rooted in expressed consent. I must agree to the terms, otherwise it’s just something the bully makes up, and I am subject to, whether I consent or not. Consent must be given freely, and can be denied or revoked by the person in question. We understand this clearly in cases of rape, but seem to forget it when talking about government.

Let’s deal with this first before moving on to other topics on the list.

A street is public property. Only the authority having jurisdiction can charge a fee (or toll). Now, if you wanted to walk across my front lawn, then the cost will be $5 (one way). However, I could not lock you in my basement, because I would be denying you your Constitutional rights. One of this country's biggest values is "freedom". You have the freedom to do whatever you want, as long as you don't break the law or infringe upon the rights of others.

The rule of law is based on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Being an American and loving this country, means you believe in settling your differences with others, peacefully. And it also means respecting the different opinions of others.

But you are right, in practice, we fall far short of the ideal. Republicans are liars; Democrats are pussy's and average Americans care about only the things that are in their comfort zone.

Loving your country, means doing things for the sake of duty and not personal profit and gain. Unfortunately, doing things for the sake of duty, is too much work. To the point that we are no longer a democratic republic. We are a corporate oligarchy and have been grouped into 3 separate categories:

1. consumer
2. warrior
3. criminal

I agree with your description of our fallen state, but this reply does not address the point raised about consent. I have challenged the notion that governmental authority is rooted in “consent of the governed”. I deny my consent. Now what? Now nothing, because government claims that I imply my consent by not physically removing myself from the place of my birth. My birth here is an “act of God”; a naturally-occuring phenomenon, and yet I am told that this act implies my consent. This “social contract”, which includes this stipulation of implication, was never reviewed and agreed upon by all parties involved. It was unilaterally established, then thrust upon me without my agreement. How can this possibly be deemed “consent”?

 

[sparky]

No one 'loves' a patch of dirt, but many have shouldered a rifle to defend the ideology it resides in

~S~

 

[Brian Blackwell]

No one 'loves' a patch of dirt, but many have shouldered a rifle to defend the ideology it resides in

~S~

How does a patch of dirt reside within an ideology? And is this ideology ubiquitous upon this land, or exlusive to this land? I don’t know that this would suffice as a definition of country. I believe a a country is the group of people living under a particular ruling class, and the land defined by their territory. This seems an odd thing to love, though.

 

[sparky]

No one 'loves' a patch of dirt, but many have shouldered a rifle to defend the ideology it resides in

~S~

How does a patch of dirt reside within an ideology? And is this ideology ubiquitous upon this land, or exlusive to this land? I don’t know that this would suffice as a definition of country. I believe a a country is the group of people living under a particular ruling class, and the land defined by their territory. This seems an odd thing to love, though.

Hi Brian

let's see, where do i start?

Ok, in the past many cultures went to to explore and/or conqueor the 'new world' , plunked their flag in the ground insisting it their turf , and imposed their laws and beliefs

So let's further the analogy...

Let's say we place some patriots in a space ship, and let 'em place a flag on whatever unoccupied 'patch of dirt' they land on.....

 

[9thIDdoc]

I understand the purported function of the Constitution, but does the Constitution actually do that?

Yes, to a rather amazing (and hopefully growing) extent it does. It is the law intended to govern government and that is the critical importance of everyone being sworn to defend it instead of the government. Government officials can and should be held accountable to the law the same as everyone else. Yes there is still corruption and probably always will be. But whose fault is that? Just as We the People share responsibility for what our Nation does overseas we also share it for what it does here at home. If we don't care enough to see that the law is enforced it is the fault of neither the Constitution nor the system.

Freedom does not have degrees .
Freedom does not include murdering people because...

Either freedom can-and sometimes should-be restricted or it can't. Can't have it both ways.
You seem to find defensive violence (self defense) acceptable but offensive and defensive are types of tactics or strategy; not types of violence and one is easily mistaken or misrepresented as the other. I see The War on Terror as self defense and entirely justified as were our attacks on Japan and Germany during WWII. War is a classic example of the people of a nation being held responsible for the actions of their government.

Yes, self-defense and offensive violence are both acts of physical force, but so is pushing a couch against a wall. To compare them on that basis alone ignores other qualities that confirm differentiation. Offensive force is an act of targeted aggression with the intent of violating another person's "God-given" "unalienable" rights. Defensive force is a protection of those rights. These are two very different actions from a moral perspective. Calling them tactics or strategies is fine, as long as you're acknowledging the moral difference between such strategies. And of course you would certainly do so if you were both mugged at gunpoint, and successfully defended against that mugging by an armed neighbor in the same encounter. You would say the mugger did something wrong, and the neighbor did something right. This distinction is self-evident and innate.

Did you understand my argument about conflicting freedoms being unable to co-exist? Your freedom to shoot your gun ends at the point where your bullets would touch my skin (or my property, which is an extension of me by way of its connection to my labor). Were your freedom able to cross that boundary, it would limit or deny my freedom. Freedom is one thing, despite our use of the terms "yours" and "mine" (which merely describe instances of its expression). Freedom cannot impose upon itself and still be freedom. This is a naturally-occurring limitation on freedom, just as gravity and other forces have naturally-occurring limitations. Man does not devise this limitation; it exists by natural and logical necessity.

The War on Terror is not self-defense, in fact it has no valid rationale whatsoever, having no defined parameters. How do you win this war? You cannot, and that's precisely the point of it. War profiteers have established an excuse for unending opportunity, and the nation have been made to by into this racket by the events of 9/11. Self-defense would have been scrambling jets to take out those hijacked planes, but where were the jets on that fateful morning? You may want to look into that for yourself. Self-defense requires a present, active attacker. It is not self-defense to preemptively attack another country, killing thousands of innocent people who have not threatened us at all. Think about how politicians obfuscate ideas and warp words to have alternate - even opposite - meanings. Freedom is slavery, war is peace... where have I heard this before?

Carefully examine this reply to my question, "Does the Constitution actually do what it's intended to do?":

"Yes, to a rather amazing (and hopefully growing) extent it does. It is the law intended to govern government and that is the critical importance of everyone being sworn to defend it instead of the government. Government officials can and should be held accountable to the law the same as everyone else."

Intentions, possibilities, supplications... Where does this demonstrate that it actually serves the cited purpose? Do you see how we're made to believe that because of this intent being written somewhere, or people taking oaths to that effect, that we actually live under this system? We have the intent and the reality scrambled in our minds because all the political and educational rhetoric pounds us with this idea from the time we're old enough to talk. It is not so. A piece of parchment does nothing to assure this intent; an oath does nothing. The reality is that our government does not exist under this limitation any more than Stalin was bound by his (1936 Soviet Constitution - Wikipedia).

The Supreme Court is government, not a neutral third party. So government is expected to limit itself. A bit of a conflict of interests, no? Sometimes it erects the facade that it is keeping congress in check, because if it didn't, we'd have ourtight revolution. But by degrees, by a tip-toe effect, it permits a distancing from those originating ideals; a process slow enough as to escape the people's awareness (or at least their resistance). If you're really interested in evaluating the strength of the culturally-sanctioned, civics class position on this matter, perhaps you will be willing to consider the following two videos at your leisure:

I did in fact watch the second video (couldn't get sound on the first) and found it interesting if long. Used up what time I have to spend online at the moment. Will comment tomorrow.

OK, the video. I expected an example of blatant left wing propaganda and of course it is indeed a propaganda piece but I was pleasantly surprised to find that it contains a large amount of truth along with the expected bullshit. Propaganda but good propaganda.

Yes, self-defense and offensive violence are both acts of physical force, but so is pushing a couch against a wall. To compare them on that basis alone ignores other qualities that confirm differentiation. Offensive force is an act of targeted aggression with the intent of violating another person's "God-given" "unalienable" rights. Defensive force is a protection of those rights. These are two very different actions from a moral perspective.

Agreed but it must be remembered there are as many different moral perspectives as there are people.
Again: rights are neither "innate" "unalienable" nor "God given". Throughout history individual rights have been few and far between. In America our rights were fought for and were conceived in suffering and death and more suffering and death have been required to keep them. They are our heritage earned-and the down payment made-by those Americans who came before us. They are what make us "WE the People".

"Did you understand my argument about conflicting freedoms being unable to co-exist?"
Yes. Do you realize that is just another way of saying freedoms can be restricted?

Intentions, possibilities, supplications... Where does this demonstrate that it actually serves the cited purpose?

The Constitution is not expected to demonstrate anything any more than a blueprint is expected to actually build a building. Our American culture-like all cultures-is in a state of constant flux. Change is the only constant. Whether the changes so far have been for the better or the worse over all is a matter of opinion. It is up to We the People (including government) to follow the blueprint of the Constitution.

"This is a naturally-occurring limitation on freedom, just as gravity and other forces have naturally-occurring limitations. Man does not devise this limitation; it exists by natural and logical necessity."

No. Freedom is a human concept; not a natural force.

"...made to by into this racket by the events of 9/11. Self-defense would have been scrambling jets to take out those hijacked planes, but where were the jets on that fateful morning?"

You would consider attacking friendly aircraft X 4 and killing innocent American civilians and violating all of their Constitutional rights self defense? Apparently we have discovered another area where you are entirely clueless.

I really appreciate you taking the time to watch the video. It demonstrates an earnest willingness to investigate the topic with an open mind; which is a rather uncommon quality in political discourse. Many believe an open mind means accepting any opinion as valid, and this being obviously ridiculous, they close up. A true open mind is one that admits any information into its critical process, giving it a fair shake without turning it away at the door. You understand this, and I appreciate that quality of character - it is supremely important.

You noted the “expected bullshit”, so I’m curious to know where you took exception. I don’t expect you to cite specifics, but overall, what about the perspective did you find skewed?

Does the fact that rights have often been infringed upon and required defense necessarily imply that they are not innate? The only alternative to them being innate is that they are granted - which raises the question, “who grants them, and by what justification?” - or that they are arbitrary constructs created in the mind of man, which denies morality as anything more than preference. Is this your view of morality? Each person makes it up, and whoever can kill their way to the top is the winner?

My argument for the limitation on freedom does not admit that it can be justifiably restricted, as this would imply there is some variation as to the level of restriction, and that there is someone who may, or may not, restrict it. Instead, I have argued that freedom is limited as a law of nature, no different than gravity’s limitations. One does not have the power to restrict gravity, but its scope is naturally limited by the laws of the universe.

Man is born with free will - this inherent autonomy is the natural basis for freedom - and denying its expression will have adverse effects, just as ignoring gravity will. This is the cause of the “choas” we see in the world, as well as within the psyche of the individual. How can this innate autonomy be validly denied as an existent phenomenon? Who moves you, who thinks for you? We do not create this, it simply IS.

I did not mean to say that the Constitution failed to demonstrate something, but that your response failed to demonstrate how the Constitution is effective. It is merely a blueprint, a wish list, having no power over man. It cannot protect us against violations of freedom and the resultant adverse consequences. What’s more, it prescribes violation by asserting the power of Congress to justifiably do things that are immoral if the individual does them. It creates an inequality of rights by establishing governmental authority.

Authority is a falsehood. Representation is a falsehood. Neither can truly exist. Each man has equal rights and is responsible for his own actions.

Free will and freedom are entirely different things. Both kings and slaves have free will but only the king has the freedom to do whatever he wishes without coercion (mostly). Individual rights (freedom) is a rare and precious thing and I am at a total loss as to why you think there is anything innate about them. Freedom is restricted by law custom and religion morals or ethics and probably other things that escape me at the moment. I think you would do well to watch the first part of your video again as relates to the Magna Charta and the Constitution. Throughout history the vast majority of people have had little freedom to do anything other than what they are told.to do and that remains true elsewhere in the world today. Where exactly do you see any innate freedom? Equal rights? Does the Queen of England a prison inmate and a Chinese coolly have equal rights? How about soldiers? Men and women? People everywhere of all religions? You're literally dreaming . Big time.
The Constitution does not force anyone to do-or not do-anything. What it does do is act as the rules that government is to govern by. It is the responsibility of the people to enforce it.

I'm afraid I must continue our discussion another time as I am on my way out of state for a reunion. Be well.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

No one 'loves' a patch of dirt, but many have shouldered a rifle to defend the ideology it resides in

~S~

How does a patch of dirt reside within an ideology? And is this ideology ubiquitous upon this land, or exlusive to this land? I don’t know that this would suffice as a definition of country. I believe a a country is the group of people living under a particular ruling class, and the land defined by their territory. This seems an odd thing to love, though.

Hi Brian

let's see, where do i start?

Ok, in the past many cultures went to to explore and/or conqueor the 'new world' , plunked their flag in the ground insisting it their turf , and imposed their laws and beliefs

So let's further the analogy...

Let's say we place some patriots in a space ship, and let 'em place a flag on whatever unoccupied 'patch of dirt' they land on.....

I’m not sure I follow, Sparky. It seems any territory claimed by the ruling class symbolized by that flag would be part of the “country”, wouldn’t it? I don’t know what’s meant by this “country” business, which is why I’m asking those people who are.

If I were to use the word, it would be in the context of the land and associated culture, as in, “It’s a fine country of rolling hills and hospitable people.” But it seems to have a political context for many. They love the flag, and the Constitution, and planes bombing people who speak other languages or something. I don’t know.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What is meant by saying you love your country?

Does it mean you love:
-The government?
-The people inhabiting a particular area of land?
-The land itself?
-The culture (language, entertainment, beliefs, etc.)

All things considered, I don't believe there is anyone who would say they love any of these things in total, or to the exclusion of all other examples throughout the world. It seems reasonable to presume that there are things you like about your culture, for instance, and things that you do not like about it. But that could also be said about many other cultures. For instance, most people enjoy some of the food popular in their culture, but not all of them; but they also like some Italian foods, and not all of them. I think this could be said of any aspect of a "country" such that the expression does not seem to mean anything particular at all.

I suspect it may just refer to an emotional state that is connected with a nebulous notion of "the country". Precisely what constitutes the country is difficult to define. What do we really mean? Where does this idea come from? Did it originate within ourselves, or is it just something we picked up from the culture itself?

In the case of my country, I love its creed, the ideals it was founded on and that it aspires to fulfill. I love that we have a heritage that is inclusive of anyone who also believes in our ideals and wants to peacefully and legally become a part of working toward them.

 

[sparky]

No one 'loves' a patch of dirt, but many have shouldered a rifle to defend the ideology it resides in

~S~

How does a patch of dirt reside within an ideology? And is this ideology ubiquitous upon this land, or exlusive to this land? I don’t know that this would suffice as a definition of country. I believe a a country is the group of people living under a particular ruling class, and the land defined by their territory. This seems an odd thing to love, though.

Hi Brian

let's see, where do i start?

Ok, in the past many cultures went to to explore and/or conqueor the 'new world' , plunked their flag in the ground insisting it their turf , and imposed their laws and beliefs

So let's further the analogy...

Let's say we place some patriots in a space ship, and let 'em place a flag on whatever unoccupied 'patch of dirt' they land on.....

I’m not sure I follow, Sparky. It seems any territory claimed by the ruling class symbolized by that flag would be part of the “country”, wouldn’t it? I don’t know what’s meant by this “country” business, which is why I’m asking those people who are.

If I were to use the word, it would be in the context of the land and associated culture, as in, “It’s a fine country of rolling hills and hospitable people.” But it seems to have a political context for many. They love the flag, and the Constitution, and planes bombing people who speak other languages or something. I don’t know.

I would say there's an inherent ideology in being American, where ever one may find Americans Brian

~S~

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I understand the purported function of the Constitution, but does the Constitution actually do that?

Yes, to a rather amazing (and hopefully growing) extent it does. It is the law intended to govern government and that is the critical importance of everyone being sworn to defend it instead of the government. Government officials can and should be held accountable to the law the same as everyone else. Yes there is still corruption and probably always will be. But whose fault is that? Just as We the People share responsibility for what our Nation does overseas we also share it for what it does here at home. If we don't care enough to see that the law is enforced it is the fault of neither the Constitution nor the system.

Freedom does not have degrees .
Freedom does not include murdering people because...

Either freedom can-and sometimes should-be restricted or it can't. Can't have it both ways.
You seem to find defensive violence (self defense) acceptable but offensive and defensive are types of tactics or strategy; not types of violence and one is easily mistaken or misrepresented as the other. I see The War on Terror as self defense and entirely justified as were our attacks on Japan and Germany during WWII. War is a classic example of the people of a nation being held responsible for the actions of their government.

Yes, self-defense and offensive violence are both acts of physical force, but so is pushing a couch against a wall. To compare them on that basis alone ignores other qualities that confirm differentiation. Offensive force is an act of targeted aggression with the intent of violating another person's "God-given" "unalienable" rights. Defensive force is a protection of those rights. These are two very different actions from a moral perspective. Calling them tactics or strategies is fine, as long as you're acknowledging the moral difference between such strategies. And of course you would certainly do so if you were both mugged at gunpoint, and successfully defended against that mugging by an armed neighbor in the same encounter. You would say the mugger did something wrong, and the neighbor did something right. This distinction is self-evident and innate.

Did you understand my argument about conflicting freedoms being unable to co-exist? Your freedom to shoot your gun ends at the point where your bullets would touch my skin (or my property, which is an extension of me by way of its connection to my labor). Were your freedom able to cross that boundary, it would limit or deny my freedom. Freedom is one thing, despite our use of the terms "yours" and "mine" (which merely describe instances of its expression). Freedom cannot impose upon itself and still be freedom. This is a naturally-occurring limitation on freedom, just as gravity and other forces have naturally-occurring limitations. Man does not devise this limitation; it exists by natural and logical necessity.

The War on Terror is not self-defense, in fact it has no valid rationale whatsoever, having no defined parameters. How do you win this war? You cannot, and that's precisely the point of it. War profiteers have established an excuse for unending opportunity, and the nation have been made to by into this racket by the events of 9/11. Self-defense would have been scrambling jets to take out those hijacked planes, but where were the jets on that fateful morning? You may want to look into that for yourself. Self-defense requires a present, active attacker. It is not self-defense to preemptively attack another country, killing thousands of innocent people who have not threatened us at all. Think about how politicians obfuscate ideas and warp words to have alternate - even opposite - meanings. Freedom is slavery, war is peace... where have I heard this before?

Carefully examine this reply to my question, "Does the Constitution actually do what it's intended to do?":

"Yes, to a rather amazing (and hopefully growing) extent it does. It is the law intended to govern government and that is the critical importance of everyone being sworn to defend it instead of the government. Government officials can and should be held accountable to the law the same as everyone else."

Intentions, possibilities, supplications... Where does this demonstrate that it actually serves the cited purpose? Do you see how we're made to believe that because of this intent being written somewhere, or people taking oaths to that effect, that we actually live under this system? We have the intent and the reality scrambled in our minds because all the political and educational rhetoric pounds us with this idea from the time we're old enough to talk. It is not so. A piece of parchment does nothing to assure this intent; an oath does nothing. The reality is that our government does not exist under this limitation any more than Stalin was bound by his (1936 Soviet Constitution - Wikipedia).

The Supreme Court is government, not a neutral third party. So government is expected to limit itself. A bit of a conflict of interests, no? Sometimes it erects the facade that it is keeping congress in check, because if it didn't, we'd have ourtight revolution. But by degrees, by a tip-toe effect, it permits a distancing from those originating ideals; a process slow enough as to escape the people's awareness (or at least their resistance). If you're really interested in evaluating the strength of the culturally-sanctioned, civics class position on this matter, perhaps you will be willing to consider the following two videos at your leisure:

I did in fact watch the second video (couldn't get sound on the first) and found it interesting if long. Used up what time I have to spend online at the moment. Will comment tomorrow.

OK, the video. I expected an example of blatant left wing propaganda and of course it is indeed a propaganda piece but I was pleasantly surprised to find that it contains a large amount of truth along with the expected bullshit. Propaganda but good propaganda.

Yes, self-defense and offensive violence are both acts of physical force, but so is pushing a couch against a wall. To compare them on that basis alone ignores other qualities that confirm differentiation. Offensive force is an act of targeted aggression with the intent of violating another person's "God-given" "unalienable" rights. Defensive force is a protection of those rights. These are two very different actions from a moral perspective.

Agreed but it must be remembered there are as many different moral perspectives as there are people.
Again: rights are neither "innate" "unalienable" nor "God given". Throughout history individual rights have been few and far between. In America our rights were fought for and were conceived in suffering and death and more suffering and death have been required to keep them. They are our heritage earned-and the down payment made-by those Americans who came before us. They are what make us "WE the People".

"Did you understand my argument about conflicting freedoms being unable to co-exist?"
Yes. Do you realize that is just another way of saying freedoms can be restricted?

Intentions, possibilities, supplications... Where does this demonstrate that it actually serves the cited purpose?

The Constitution is not expected to demonstrate anything any more than a blueprint is expected to actually build a building. Our American culture-like all cultures-is in a state of constant flux. Change is the only constant. Whether the changes so far have been for the better or the worse over all is a matter of opinion. It is up to We the People (including government) to follow the blueprint of the Constitution.

"This is a naturally-occurring limitation on freedom, just as gravity and other forces have naturally-occurring limitations. Man does not devise this limitation; it exists by natural and logical necessity."

No. Freedom is a human concept; not a natural force.

"...made to by into this racket by the events of 9/11. Self-defense would have been scrambling jets to take out those hijacked planes, but where were the jets on that fateful morning?"

You would consider attacking friendly aircraft X 4 and killing innocent American civilians and violating all of their Constitutional rights self defense? Apparently we have discovered another area where you are entirely clueless.

I really appreciate you taking the time to watch the video. It demonstrates an earnest willingness to investigate the topic with an open mind; which is a rather uncommon quality in political discourse. Many believe an open mind means accepting any opinion as valid, and this being obviously ridiculous, they close up. A true open mind is one that admits any information into its critical process, giving it a fair shake without turning it away at the door. You understand this, and I appreciate that quality of character - it is supremely important.

You noted the “expected bullshit”, so I’m curious to know where you took exception. I don’t expect you to cite specifics, but overall, what about the perspective did you find skewed?

Does the fact that rights have often been infringed upon and required defense necessarily imply that they are not innate? The only alternative to them being innate is that they are granted - which raises the question, “who grants them, and by what justification?” - or that they are arbitrary constructs created in the mind of man, which denies morality as anything more than preference. Is this your view of morality? Each person makes it up, and whoever can kill their way to the top is the winner?

My argument for the limitation on freedom does not admit that it can be justifiably restricted, as this would imply there is some variation as to the level of restriction, and that there is someone who may, or may not, restrict it. Instead, I have argued that freedom is limited as a law of nature, no different than gravity’s limitations. One does not have the power to restrict gravity, but its scope is naturally limited by the laws of the universe.

Man is born with free will - this inherent autonomy is the natural basis for freedom - and denying its expression will have adverse effects, just as ignoring gravity will. This is the cause of the “choas” we see in the world, as well as within the psyche of the individual. How can this innate autonomy be validly denied as an existent phenomenon? Who moves you, who thinks for you? We do not create this, it simply IS.

I did not mean to say that the Constitution failed to demonstrate something, but that your response failed to demonstrate how the Constitution is effective. It is merely a blueprint, a wish list, having no power over man. It cannot protect us against violations of freedom and the resultant adverse consequences. What’s more, it prescribes violation by asserting the power of Congress to justifiably do things that are immoral if the individual does them. It creates an inequality of rights by establishing governmental authority.

Authority is a falsehood. Representation is a falsehood. Neither can truly exist. Each man has equal rights and is responsible for his own actions.

Free will and freedom are entirely different things. Both kings and slaves have free will but only the king has the freedom to do whatever he wishes without coercion (mostly). Individual rights (freedom) is a rare and precious thing and I am at a total loss as to why you think there is anything innate about them. Freedom is restricted by law custom and religion morals or ethics and probably other things that escape me at the moment. I think you would do well to watch the first part of your video again as relates to the Magna Charta and the Constitution. Throughout history the vast majority of people have had little freedom to do anything other than what they are told.to do and that remains true elsewhere in the world today. Where exactly do you see any innate freedom? Equal rights? Does the Queen of England a prison inmate and a Chinese coolly have equal rights? How about soldiers? Men and women? People everywhere of all religions? You're literally dreaming . Big time.
The Constitution does not force anyone to do-or not do-anything. What it does do is act as the rules that government is to govern by. It is the responsibility of the people to enforce it.

I'm afraid I must continue our discussion another time as I am on my way out of state for a reunion. Be well.

Ok. Enjoy your evening, I will speak to you again soon.

 

[MarathonMike]

In keeping with our duty to establish a firm basis for supporting this system (after all, we are subjecting ourselves, our children, our neighbors, and the world at large to the immense power of this government), the following point, which I will repeat, must be addressed directly; as it is the bedrock upon which the validity of the system is founded:

"...could you explain how government gets its power? Most would say “from the people”, but do the people have these powers, such that they may give them to government? You may give your consent for them to rule you, but can you give your consent for them to rule me? How does one validly delegate a right he doesn’t have to begin with? Can I delegate the right for my brother to paint your house pink? If not, why not? Because I don’t have that right, and neither does he. The delegation must be rooted in a right actually possessed - so who among us has the right to personally claim a portion of their neighbor’s labor such that they may choose a delegate to execute that right?"

Did we have a right to push the Indians off of their ancestral lands and onto reservations? Yes. That is the right of war and the Indians were the conquered nation. Did we have a right to fight England and declare our independence from them? It depends what side you were on at the time. We certainly thought so. Did the Founding Fathers have the right to grant powers to a newly formed government that they themselves didn't have? Yes because they were creating a country. And as in any human creation it is the right of the originator(s) to design it any way he wants. "Rights" are a very broad and abstract concept. There are basic human rights, rights to property, rights to privacy, rights of rescission, etc etc. Every modern society defines a set of rights and laws for it's citizens. This is a necessity because humans are inherently wicked. We are fortunate to have been granted a large set of rights and fairly non-intrusive laws. By contrast citizens of North Korea have a very small set of rights and extremely oppressive laws.

Ok, so we have:

-The "right of war".
-The right to declare independence is dependent upon which side you're on.
-The right to grant powers you don't have being valid if you're creating a country.
-The right of "originators" to design anything they want.
-Society defining rights.
-People (government) granting rights to other people.

Are you comfortable with this as representative of your position so far? I think this discussion is hampered by the fact that we have not established a definition of rights, which necessarily requires a statement as to their origin. So what do you cite as the origin or rights?

As a side note, I want to address the notion that "Humans are inherently wicked". I'm not sure how broad your definition of "wicked" is, but is this consistent with your first-hand experience? When you are at a concert, or at the mall, or shopping at the grocery store, do you experience expressions of this wickedness? Do you consider yourself to be wicked? Howso?

And if humans are inherently wicked, how do you suppose that a rational solution to that problem is to create a seat of immense power and place some from among that wicked throng upon it? Wouldn't this only magnify their wickedness? Wouldn't it be better to keep the playing field level so that everyone at least has a fighting chance?

I did not word my statement on human wickedness very well. I did not mean to say that every human is wicked I do not believe that at all. But in any group, large or small there will be those who lie, cheat, steal, abuse or kill. That is why I believe there has to be an agreed upon set of laws and some sort of enforcement to insure the laws are followed.

Yes I agree that with the creation of a 'seat of power' there is the risk of corruption. Power corrupts. But again I ask you, what is your alternative? A level playing field meaning "work it out amongst yourselves"? Then that by default invokes the law of "might makes right". I suppose we could live like Western settlers in the 1800s but that isn't a life that many people would want.

Fair enough. I agree that (for the foreseeable future) there will always be some among us who act immorally. But man’s law opposing immorality is rather redundant, as the overwhelming majority of people agree that theft, murder, etc. are wrong, and believe they have a right to defend against it. Why do we need an authoritarian institution simply to defend people’s inherent rights? And aren’t we violating the very rights we’re claiming to protect when we “grant” government the exclusive “right” to claim a portion of the people’s labor under threat of violence via taxation? Or when we create all manner of other laws that have nothing to do with protecting inherent rights, and make them punishable by theft and violence?

An alternative would be an organized protection agency that does not claim exclusive rights. They are merely an extension of the people’s right of self-defense, not some immaginary super-human entity that has rights nobody else has. They cannot step between consenting adults interacting in non-harmful ways, because they are not an authority, but truly a delegate and a servant (very much unlike the people who claim these titles today). The seat of power is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is a corruption itself; representing an inequality and violation of rights. The alternative would be man’s natural, God-given freedom, and the right to protect that freedom.

Might makes right is what we have now, except that the might is monopolized by government and is immensely more powerful and dangerous, and this might is wielded by voting, instead of direct contact between aggressor and victim. You vote for substance X to be made illegal, or to have a portion of my labor spent on things you deem appropriate, then government comes and exacts might on me to fulfill your will. Nevermind the fact that you probably would not feel morally justified doing this to me personally, or feel sufficiently confident in your ability to do so, or motivated to do so if I wan’t bothering you. The result is way more coercion, as hundreds of millions who would not coerce on their own, do so through governmental law.

I think a modern version of the frontier society would be very appealling, since much of what people don’t like about that lifestyle is the perceived hardships, which modern wealth and technology largely eradicate.

I disagree. Might makes right is what humans always default to in the absence of government. Even you are aknowledging the need for some sort of protection agency
and as soon as you have created that, you have seat of power that is corruptable, right? There will always be this give and take between the need for authority and reigning in that authority. That is why the Founding Fathers took great care in their design of the Constitution to have checks and balances, and to give citizens the right to bear arms against the possibility of government gone bad. It has worked remarkably well for 200 hundred years, unfortunately the balance of power within the government now has essentially been destroyed by a politically slanted Judicial branch.

As I've stated humans will always be flawed and create flawed agencies and governments but it is IMO necessary because people will always have their freedoms infringed upon by the more unethical and violent members of society.

Well wait, a private protection agency is not a corruptible seat of power born of a necessity for “authority”. It is not an authority, and does not have any power in excess of what its customers have. It’s like having a bodyguard - you delegate to him your right of self-defense. This delegation is valid because it is rooted in your right.

This is not what government is. You “delegate” to Congress rights that you don’t have. This is not a valid delegation. You do not have the right to make law for your neighbors, or to extort a portion of the fruit of their labor. You commit this immoral act by proxy via this invalid delegation. That’s the key problem here.[/QUOTE]
I think we're kind of talking in circles at this point but I enjoyed the discussion. Welcome to USMB.