- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,519
- 2,165
- Banned
- #41
Let's see some solid evidence for "That is exactly why the abuses occurred with the Veterans in the VA, soldiers were put on secret death lists cuz they were too expensive and sick to treat."
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Agreed as well. At the same time it has historically been the "magic", if you will, of the US to find that balance of govt being the will of the people that I think De Tocqueville was so taken with. The question is can it be sustained?Agreed.At the same time, is it possible to have a "society" without some semblance of "collectivism"? This all reminds me of discussions I've recently had with current college kids about "socialism". To them it's about healthcare, the broader context is lost. Again I hate the term "collectivism", it can mean so different many things on so many layers..That is my point.How do you propose to institute collectivism, without also ushering in a tyrannical government?So then, we need collectivism because we are a collective. Right? If so, how do you institute collectivism without government?I believe the crucial part of that is "institute". Is it necessary to "institute" collectivism? ( Although I hate the term collectivism)How do you propose to institute collectivism, without also ushering in a tyrannical government?So then, we need collectivism because we are a collective. Right? If so, how do you institute collectivism without government?
I don't think it possible to have a collectivist society, without a huge tyrannical government contolled by a small unaccountable all powerful elite.
IMO collectivism is fine, as along as it is not imposed by government.
We collectively are the ones in power if we choose to exercise that power. By not exercising it we fall prey to those who do. That was Tocqueville's point.Collectives are imaginary constructs whose characteristics take on whatever form those in power wish them to be and most often those characteristics become whatever suits the purposes of the one(s) holding the reins of power, and that is EXACTLY what De Tocqueville was warning about as a vector for soft despotism.
It's funny, with the time I've spent with college kids recently subjects like fascism and antifa have come up repeatedly. I point out that that if you don't fascism, the US constitution ain't bad. Amazingly it's a hard sell, until I ask "what else". Cue the crickets. I even suggest the magna carta, cue the crickets. Although some are coming around.We the people of the United States. The outline for the rules of the collective can be found here.We" are a collective? Who's "we"? What does this "collective" look like? What are its attributes? Can you see it, touch it?
The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription
It's funny, with the time I've spent with college kids recently subjects like fascism and antifa have come up repeatedly. I point out that that if you don't fascism, the US constitution ain't bad. Amazingly it's a hard sell, until I ask "what else". Cue the crickets. I even suggest the magna carta, cue the crickets. Although some are coming around.We the people of the United States. The outline for the rules of the collective can be found here.We" are a collective? Who's "we"? What does this "collective" look like? What are its attributes? Can you see it, touch it?
The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription
Good points. Using federal power to control the Weinsteins and Trumps' libido is probably inappropriate.We collectively are the ones in power if we choose to exercise that power. By not exercising it we fall prey to those who do. That was Tocqueville's point.Collectives are imaginary constructs whose characteristics take on whatever form those in power wish them to be and most often those characteristics become whatever suits the purposes of the one(s) holding the reins of power, and that is EXACTLY what De Tocqueville was warning about as a vector for soft despotism.
The Founding Fathers provided a legal means to try and keep the federal government in check, via the Article V amendment. States can rise up and pass amendments to the Constitution if they feel the need to check the power of the federal government. As of yet, this has never been done, but a movement is under way to do just that.
The US federal Congress has had an abysmal approval rating of under 20% for some time now, yet nothing changes.
Can the Article V movement overcome all the money and power that holds abusers such as Harvey Weinstein in power for 3 or more decades? I don't think it can, but it's worth a try.
That wasn't his point, IMHO he's specifically talking about the complacency (and apathy) of individuals and the tyranny of the majority in that chapter pursuant to pointing out the contradiction between an individuals desire to be "led" and his/her desire to be free as it relates to Western Democratic societies.We collectively are the ones in power if we choose to exercise that power. By not exercising it we fall prey to those who do. That was Tocqueville's point.Collectives are imaginary constructs whose characteristics take on whatever form those in power wish them to be and most often those characteristics become whatever suits the purposes of the one(s) holding the reins of power, and that is EXACTLY what De Tocqueville was warning about as a vector for soft despotism.
The Daniel Shays scared the crap out of the Founders. And the Federalists saw the Jeffersonians as enemies of the Republic. That is not much different than today. The mainstream GOP, the Trump Opposition, and the Dems see each other as enemies far more than opponents.It's funny, with the time I've spent with college kids recently subjects like fascism and antifa have come up repeatedly. I point out that that if you don't fascism, the US constitution ain't bad. Amazingly it's a hard sell, until I ask "what else". Cue the crickets. I even suggest the magna carta, cue the crickets. Although some are coming around.We the people of the United States. The outline for the rules of the collective can be found here.We" are a collective? Who's "we"? What does this "collective" look like? What are its attributes? Can you see it, touch it?
The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription
It is baffling to me that the Founding Fathers came up with the Constitution after fighting a bloody war for freedom and independence, only to then turn right around and pass the Alien and Sedition Acts that cracked down hard on those speaking out against government. Most of it was repealed later by Jefferson who was appalled by it, but it is important to note that Jefferson took advantage of those acts before he disbanded them.
How many Jeffersons are out there? My guess is damned few. Later, FDR took advantage of some provision left over by those acts to imprison innocent Japanese Americans.
The enemy is within, and it is us.
I never made that claim but clearly he recognized that we are.There is no advocacy for "the collective" in his argument
Not specifically, but he does make the case that withdrawing into our own petty desires is what leads to the form of despotism. Which is all the point I was trying to make regarding the OP.nor is there an indictment of individualism.
The Daniel Shays scared the crap out of the Founders. And the Federalists saw the Jeffersonians as enemies of the Republic. That is not much different than today. The mainstream GOP, the Trump Opposition, and the Dems see each other as enemies far more than opponents.It's funny, with the time I've spent with college kids recently subjects like fascism and antifa have come up repeatedly. I point out that that if you don't fascism, the US constitution ain't bad. Amazingly it's a hard sell, until I ask "what else". Cue the crickets. I even suggest the magna carta, cue the crickets. Although some are coming around.We the people of the United States. The outline for the rules of the collective can be found here.We" are a collective? Who's "we"? What does this "collective" look like? What are its attributes? Can you see it, touch it?
The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription
It is baffling to me that the Founding Fathers came up with the Constitution after fighting a bloody war for freedom and independence, only to then turn right around and pass the Alien and Sedition Acts that cracked down hard on those speaking out against government. Most of it was repealed later by Jefferson who was appalled by it, but it is important to note that Jefferson took advantage of those acts before he disbanded them.
How many Jeffersons are out there? My guess is damned few. Later, FDR took advantage of some provision left over by those acts to imprison innocent Japanese Americans.
The enemy is within, and it is us.
So then, we need collectivism because we are a collective. Right? If so, how do you institute collectivism without government?
Good points.The Daniel Shays scared the crap out of the Founders. And the Federalists saw the Jeffersonians as enemies of the Republic. That is not much different than today. The mainstream GOP, the Trump Opposition, and the Dems see each other as enemies far more than opponents.It's funny, with the time I've spent with college kids recently subjects like fascism and antifa have come up repeatedly. I point out that that if you don't fascism, the US constitution ain't bad. Amazingly it's a hard sell, until I ask "what else". Cue the crickets. I even suggest the magna carta, cue the crickets. Although some are coming around.We the people of the United States. The outline for the rules of the collective can be found here.We" are a collective? Who's "we"? What does this "collective" look like? What are its attributes? Can you see it, touch it?
The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription
It is baffling to me that the Founding Fathers came up with the Constitution after fighting a bloody war for freedom and independence, only to then turn right around and pass the Alien and Sedition Acts that cracked down hard on those speaking out against government. Most of it was repealed later by Jefferson who was appalled by it, but it is important to note that Jefferson took advantage of those acts before he disbanded them.
How many Jeffersons are out there? My guess is damned few. Later, FDR took advantage of some provision left over by those acts to imprison innocent Japanese Americans.
The enemy is within, and it is us.
I think you will find, everyone has a devil. For you, it is conservatives and Trump.
In terms of the Articles of Confederation, it simply did not empower the federal government enough. George Washington aptly stated the problem, "No money".
Then the Constitution was passed. It worked fine until the dawn of the Progressive era when they amended it. Instead of letting states appoint Senators, they had them directly elected. This undermined the power and influence of the states, which is what Progressives were all about. Then they created a federal income tax, something decreed unconstitutional by SCOTUS years prior. Then they created their own bank. Now they just throw money all over the globe and at home to gain power and influence as they meddle in affairs of every man, and woman, and child on the planet.
Before the problem was "No money", and now the problem is "monopoly money".
Clearly it hasn’t been sustained. We have almost nothing in common with the America Tocqueville experienced.Agreed as well. At the same time it has historically been the "magic", if you will, of the US to find that balance of govt being the will of the people that I think De Tocqueville was so taken with. The question is can it be sustained?Agreed.At the same time, is it possible to have a "society" without some semblance of "collectivism"? This all reminds me of discussions I've recently had with current college kids about "socialism". To them it's about healthcare, the broader context is lost. Again I hate the term "collectivism", it can mean so different many things on so many layers..That is my point.How do you propose to institute collectivism, without also ushering in a tyrannical government?I believe the crucial part of that is "institute". Is it necessary to "institute" collectivism? ( Although I hate the term collectivism)How do you propose to institute collectivism, without also ushering in a tyrannical government?
I don't think it possible to have a collectivist society, without a huge tyrannical government contolled by a small unaccountable all powerful elite.
IMO collectivism is fine, as along as it is not imposed by government.
Truer words could not be spoken.The enemy is within, and it is us.