• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Constitutional Convention Preamble[W:425]

Federalist said:
Assuming? What if Brown never agreed to a representational system?
Click to expand...

Then why are the neighbors talking to him?

You left a lot out of your example.

In the case of the United States of America, as citizens we agree to a representational system.
 
ernst barkmann said:
so you are saying, because i and others want a society along the ideas i and others have, we can dictate to Citizens who do not share our view, and take from them what we want...

what happened to that equality?
Click to expand...
Equality is treating everyone equally.
e·qual·i·ty
əˈkwälədē/
noun
the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities.
Click to expand...

That you do not agree with your treatment does not mean it is unequal to how others are treated - it simply means you do not agree. (that said I wouldn't say people are treated equally these days)

Unless of course you are arguing that no one should be required to do anything, and a person may do whatever they wish so long as it does not conflict with another's desire to do whatever they wish. Which of course it will.


When this happens how do we determine whose will takes precedence, if any?
 
paddymcdougall said:
Then why are the neighbors talking to him?
Click to expand...

Because they want his money. Smith and Jones go to Brown and say, "We think that we'd like to provide some free schooling, so we're going to take your money."
 
Federalist said:
Because they want his money. Smith and Jones go to Brown and say, "We think that we'd like to provide some free schooling, so we're going to take your money."
Click to expand...
More accurately they would say "we're going to take X percentage of X income/asset value every set period of time, from everyone who has income/asset.
 
The Mark said:
More accurately they would say "we're going to take X percentage of X income/asset value every set period of time, from everyone who has income/asset.
Click to expand...

They might. In any event, Smith and Jones are demonstrating that they feel that they are the rulers of Brown. That's an attitude that I personally will not adopt. I don't feel that I am the ruler over anyone, but rather that we are all equals.
 
Federalist said:
They might. In any event, Smith and Jones are demonstrating that they feel that they are the rulers of Brown. That's an attitude that I personally will not adopt. I don't feel that I am the ruler over anyone, but rather that we are all equals.
Click to expand...

No, they aren't the rulers; they are all voting for something, Brown lost. I just am not getting how this is different from how our country runs. Our representatives decided on a "good" (assisted by input from their constituents); they pass a tax to support the good; and even if you are against the tax you pay it.

Perhaps you are thinking more of something like what happens in rural areas where neighbors join together to maintain their road. When new rock is needed, all the neighbors are asked to contribute. In this case, you can refuse (assuming it's not done through an HOA) but you'll be considered a bad neighbor. The last time we (me and my neighbors) had gravel put down on the first part of the road, I thought we were doing a few too many loads, but I still contributed my share. Didn't have to. But the people suggesting we do the rock didn't think they were "rulers" over me. We all use the road, we all contribute.
 
The Mark said:
Equality is treating everyone equally.


That you do not agree with your treatment does not mean it is unequal to how others are treated - it simply means you do not agree. (that said I wouldn't say people are treated equally these days)

Unless of course you are arguing that no one should be required to do anything, and a person may do whatever they wish so long as it does not conflict with another's desire to do whatever they wish. Which of course it will.

When this happens how do we determine whose will takes precedence, if any?
Click to expand...



it is treating everyone equal under the law, not equal by law....government cannot create laws to force me to treat Peter like Paul.

you have rights, which encompass doing many things as long as your exercise of your rights does not violate the RIGHTS of another person, or your actions do not threaten the health and safety of the public.

if your actions do neither of those two things, then by what authority does government have on you?

if you wish to exercise a PRIVILEGE of government, then you must follow the rules of government that they lay down.
 
sangha said:
In reality, the govt can and has passed laws which force people to treat people equally.

You don't have to like it, but that's how democracy works.
Click to expand...

What democracy are you talking about?
 
paddymcdougall said:
The supreme court hasn't found the equal treatment rules unconstitutional. At least not yet.
Click to expand...

again it is equality under the law.....meaning every law which government passes must be applied to every person equally, no person because of wealth, status can be exempt from a law everyone else would have to obey.

it never meant for government to make people equal by law.....because that violates the rights of the people.
 
paddymcdougall said:
No, they aren't the rulers; they are all voting for something, Brown lost.
Click to expand...

The fact that people vote prior to forcing you to do something doesn't mean they're not forcing you to do something and ruling over you.

Sally is walking down the street and is approached by three guys. "Hey, I propose we take this lady's purse. All in favor?" The vote goes 3 to 1. Does this make taking her purse right?
 
Federalist said:
The fact that people vote prior to forcing you to do something doesn't mean they're not forcing you to do something and ruling over you.

Sally is walking down the street and is approached by three guys. "Hey, I propose we take this lady's purse. All in favor?" The vote goes 3 to 1. Does this make taking her purse right?
Click to expand...

the government was never set up to be majority rule

1the house is of the people, it takes a majority vote in the house.

2 the senate is of the states, its takes a majority vote in the senate.

3 the president, signs the bill.

it took 3 separate entities, for a law to pass.
 
Federalist said:
The fact that people vote prior to forcing you to do something doesn't mean they're not forcing you to do something and ruling over you.

Sally is walking down the street and is approached by three guys. "Hey, I propose we take this lady's purse. All in favor?" The vote goes 3 to 1. Does this make taking her purse right?
Click to expand...

As I've pointed out before, the right-libertarians hate democracy
 
sangha said:
As I've pointed out before, the right-libertarians hate democracy
Click to expand...
No kidding.
They hate everything except their weapons and Jack Daniels.
 
sangha said:
Hey!! Stop with the partisan hackery. You're setting a bad example!!
Click to expand...

OK, OK, I hear you

Change that to "Right-Libertarianism is inherently undemocratic because, unlike the framers who believed that the people had a right to choose whatever form of govt they preferred right-libertarians believe that the only way people can have the freedom to choose is if they are prohibited from choosing certain types of govt"

Happy now?
 
sangha said:
OK, OK, I hear you

Change that to "Right-Libertarianism is inherently undemocratic because, unlike the framers who believed that the people had a right to choose whatever form of govt they preferred right-libertarians believe that the only way people can have the freedom to choose is if they are prohibited from choosing certain types of govt"

Happy now?
Click to expand...

Much better
 
You're making me laugh, Sangha! is that allowed under the constitution?
 
sangha said:
As I've pointed out before, the right-libertarians hate democracy
Click to expand...

Not democracy. Just violating the life, liberty, and propety of our fellow man.
 
sangha said:
As I've pointed out before, the right-libertarians hate democracy
Click to expand...

yes.. i hate democracy......AS A "FORM" OF GOVERNMENT.

meaning a democratic form of government.

i have no problem and WANT democracy as a single element, of REPUBLICAN form government

the only people who want democracy are people who do not understand democracy what it truly is or people who are socialist and know exactly what it is.


"democracy is the road to socialism", as Karl Marx

"democracy is indispensable to socialism." - Vladimir Lenin


The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty . Fisher Aimes
 
sangha said:
OK, OK, I hear you

Change that to "Right-Libertarianism is inherently undemocratic because, unlike the framers who believed that the people had a right to choose whatever form of govt they preferred right-libertarians believe that the only way people can have the freedom to choose is if they are prohibited from choosing certain types of govt"

Happy now?
Click to expand...

sounds to me, as you are using the rules for you own use, breaking them by talking to yourself...


federalist 10 -The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.

factious combinations = special interest groups.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom