The point of government

[sawyerloggingon]

Why? Does it alter reality in some way?

No it is reality, our constitution was written to protect our freedoms not limit them. "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" does not limit freedoms it guarantees them.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Our government is founded on the principle of minimizing the limitations on freedom by government. All governments exist to place limits freedom, though. :shrug:

You seem to be confusing freedom with anarchy. There is no God given freedom to rape rob and pillage, that is not freedom that is criminal behavior engaged in by sick, evil and or twisted people. Maybe if you modified your position and said government limits the freedom of criminals you would be on more firm ground.

 

[ocean515]

I wonder just what might happen should the American public ever wake up to that fact. Alas, they watch slack jawed and uncritically while the commercials paid for by special interests feed them a steady line of BS upon which they base their votes.



Really?
The last time around, I was fairly certain that Romney was the better of the two candidates for POTUS, and still am. However, since I live in California, aka, Obamastan, there was no point in voting for him, as the outcome of the election in this formerly great golden state was already a foregone conclusion. How did that give me any more power?

As a fellow resident of Kalifornistan, I do indeed feel your pain. However, it was the Electoral College that gave some degree of power to rural states, who would otherwise have little say in the voting for President.

There are some who suggest the EC has outlived it's usefulness. I don't know. I'm certainly no expert on the subject, but I do know a popular vote would be a disaster for the rural states who wouldn't even be worth flying over by Presidential candidates. I think those people deserve a little say.

 

[ocean515]

Not really. If the goal was to give people all of the power, it'd be a direct democracy.

A direct democracy would remove millions of voters from being part of the election process. Only the major population centers would receive any attention, and the rural areas of the country would be ignored.

Large groups of people would be disenfranchised and their thoughts and ideas ignored.

 

[Tucker Case]

Dude. Crimes malum in se -- i.e., inherently wrong regardless of any legal construct -- is a concept which goes back thousands of years (which is why there's a Latin term for it). There's also jus cogens crime -- crimes against the mind of man -- behavior so heinous that no specific law is necessary for its punishment. You're arguing with a lawyer about the history of crime and punishment.

Without law, it's nothing more than a "really bad thing". It isn't a crime without law. Malum in se is merely a justification for creating a law defining a behavior as a crime.

But let's recap what the exact argument is, lest that gets lost. This started when you said:



You are wrong. That the American government was founded to guarantee freedoms is stated right there in the Declaration.

How does quoting politicians saying something mean I am wrong about it being a lie told by politicians? hink about that for a minute.

The premise is that we have unalienable rights -- among them life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. I.E., those things inherent to living life as we choose with a minimum of interference. NOT among them? Crime.

rights =/= freedom.

What is "freedom" -- political freedom? The freedom to exercise those rights. Crime is not among those rights.

That's an imaginary definition of freedom. Please access a dictionary.

Properly understood, what sawyer said is correct. What YOU say is not only historically incorrect (the idea was not borne of lies told by politicians, but in the foundation of the country), but conceptually incorrect, based on an erroneous choice of definition of "freedom." Words mean different things in different contexts, and in this context, "freedom" is "political freedom," not absolute physical possibility, as you're using it.

In order for anything to be properly understood, real definitions should be used rather than the imaginary gibberish you made up in lieu of a real definition. There is no context that exists in which your imaginary gibberish definitions for words are the correct definition for those words.

Definitions should come from dictionaries, not your imagination.

As for slavery, what you're saying is that because something doesn't work perfectly, it's absolute proof that it was never intended to work that way.

Unless you start using real definitions, rather than imaginary one's you made up, you are not capable of discussing what I am saying, because what I am saying is dependent on words being used correctly.

If you, or anyone else, makes a claim about something's purpose, then there must be evidence to support that claim, not evidence which supports the opposite of that claim.

The fact that slavery was preserved by the government proves the purpose of our government could not possibly have been to preserve liberty. If somethings purpose is to preserve liberty, it cannot actively preserve the opposite of liberty.


It's not about working perfectly, it's about working at all. Something which preserves the opposite of liberty is not working at all at preserving liberty. If this does not impede the thing from functioning in accordance with it's purpose, then it's purpose cannot be to preserve liberty.

If you said the Bill of Rights' purpose was to preserve certain freedoms, I'd say you were correct, because it does exist for that purpose.

It would not exist, however, if the purpose of government was anything other than to place limitations on freedom. If the government did not exist for that purpose, there'd be no reason to limit it's power, and thus no reason for the Bill of Rights to exist.

 

[Harshaw]

Without law, it's nothing more than a "really bad thing". It isn't a crime without law. Malum in se is merely a justification for creating a law defining a behavior as a crime.

No. You're just making that up. That's not what malum in se is.

How does quoting politicians saying something mean I am wrong about it being a lie told by politicians? hink about that for a minute.

It means just about everything when discussing the intent behind the government.

rights =/= freedom.



That's an imaginary definition of freedom. Please access a dictionary.

OK, stick your fingers in your ears and shout "nuh-uhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" as much as you want; it won't be any less childish as it goes on.

In order for anything to be properly understood, real definitions should be used rather than the imaginary gibberish you made up in lieu of a real definition. There is no context that exists in which your imaginary gibberish definitions for words are the correct definition for those words.

Definitions should come from dictionaries, not your imagination.

Unless you start using real definitions, rather than imaginary one's you made up, you are not capable of discussing what I am saying, because what I am saying is dependent on words being used correctly.

They didn't come from my imagination. They came from the concepts upon which the country was founded, which can be found in innumerable writings of the men who did so, and in the Enlightenment literature from which they drew, not to mention the entire history of English law.

That you don't want it to be so will not make it any less so.

It's not about working perfectly, it's about working at all.

That's bull****. It worked just fine for those considered to be part of society -- including free blacks, by the way. It did not work uniformly for everyone, but that doesn't speak to its intent, only its efficacy.

You can keep flailing if you like; what I said is correct and no number of spins of the merry-go-round will make it less so. You can choose to remain in ignorance about all of this because you'd rather believe what you say, too, and that will not be my problem.

So, puff out your chest, be stubborn, and convince yourself you're right. That will not change a thing about my day.

 

[Tucker Case]

A direct democracy would remove millions of voters from being part of the election process.

They'd be part of it, they just wouldn't get their way. just because the majority of the people disagree with them doesn't mean they should be given more power than the majority. The people would be able to make the decisions.

Only the major population centers would receive any attention, and the rural areas of the country would be ignored.

Look at it this way. There are 536 elected officials in the government right now (435 congressman, 100 senators, 1 president). How many did you have the opportunity to vote for yourself? The answer is 4. Only 4 out of 536.

Now let's say you hold different political views from the majority of people in your local area, which is the case for me living in Chicago and a WHOLE lot of other people living here. Because I am not in lockstep with the majority in my area, the total number of elected officials I have given my vote is 0. All 4 of the people I had the opportunity to vote for that "represent me" in the government are people I voted against.

Everyone who has ever voted for "the other guy" has been ignored by our system. They have no voice, they have no Representative in our government. That number can far exceed a simple minority if there are a lot of close elections nationwide.

The people don't have any real power in our system of government. It's a myth.

Personally, I support something like Switzerland's confederacy. Direct democracy when feasible, proportional democracy when it's not. Dual federalism for the Canons. Far more power for the people that way. Instead of a president, you have an executive committee. It's far more effective in minimizing disenfranchisement.

Large groups of people would be disenfranchised and their thoughts and ideas ignored.

Which is different from the current system how, exactly? How can you get more disenfranchisement than what we currently have? The first past the post system is the one which maximizes disenfranchisement.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Only if they imposed some form of government upon others. The very act of limiting another person's freedom is the act of governing them

They would impose some form of government, no doubt, a sort of "do as I say or else" form of government.

 

[Dittohead not!]

As a fellow resident of Kalifornistan, I do indeed feel your pain. However, it was the Electoral College that gave some degree of power to rural states, who would otherwise have little say in the voting for President.

There are some who suggest the EC has outlived it's usefulness. I don't know. I'm certainly no expert on the subject, but I do know a popular vote would be a disaster for the rural states who wouldn't even be worth flying over by Presidential candidates. I think those people deserve a little say.

Yes, the sparsely populated states have more power than they would have without the EC. What we have in California is a state wide sort of version of the rural vs urban conflict. The people of the San Francisco Bay Area and the LA Basin so totally outvote the rest of the state that there is little chance that the rural agricultural parts will have any say about anything.

I understand there is yet another move afoot to split California into northern and southern states, creating the new state of Jackson.

Were that impossible dream to ever become a reality, we'd have 51 states, including one more red one with sparse population.

 

[ocean515]

They'd be part of it, they just wouldn't get their way. just because the majority of the people disagree with them doesn't mean they should be given more power than the majority. The people would be able to make the decisions.



Look at it this way. There are 536 elected officials in the government right now (435 congressman, 100 senators, 1 president). How many did you have the opportunity to vote for yourself? The answer is 4. Only 4 out of 536.

Now let's say you hold different political views from the majority of people in your local area, which is the case for me living in Chicago and a WHOLE lot of other people living here. Because I am not in lockstep with the majority in my area, the total number of elected officials I have given my vote is 0. All 4 of the people I had the opportunity to vote for that "represent me" in the government are people I voted against.

Everyone who has ever voted for "the other guy" has been ignored by our system. They have no voice, they have no Representative in our government. That number can far exceed a simple minority if there are a lot of close elections nationwide.

The people don't have any real power in our system of government. It's a myth.

Personally, I support something like Switzerland's confederacy. Direct democracy when feasible, proportional democracy when it's not. Dual federalism for the Canons. Far more power for the people that way. Instead of a president, you have an executive committee. It's far more effective in minimizing disenfranchisement.



Which is different from the current system how, exactly? How can you get more disenfranchisement than what we currently have? The first past the post system is the one which maximizes disenfranchisement.

Under your theory, the citizens of just a few states could dictate to the rest of the country how all were to live. They could ignore the needs of the others and run the country as they saw fit. That's not what this country is about.

I don't think you've thought this through.

 

[ocean515]

Yes, the sparsely populated states have more power than they would have without the EC. What we have in California is a state wide sort of version of the rural vs urban conflict. The people of the San Francisco Bay Area and the LA Basin so totally outvote the rest of the state that there is little chance that the rural agricultural parts will have any say about anything.

I understand there is yet another move afoot to split California into northern and southern states, creating the new state of Jackson.

Were that impossible dream to ever become a reality, we'd have 51 states, including one more red one with sparse population.

It is an interesting map of California, when political party election affiliations are posted by county. Kind of like a map of the U.S.

The split California in two argument has been around for some time. An interesting idea, and one that could cause me to decamp Southern California 141 years after the fam put down roots here.

 

[Tucker Case]

No. You're just making that up. That's not what malum in se is.

<Malum in se is "that which is inherently wrong". It's a justification for making something a crime.

It means just about everything when discussing the intent behind the government.

So if you quote a politician telling a lie, it makes the lie true? :lol:

OK, stick your fingers in your ears and shout "nuh-uhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" as much as you want; it won't be any less childish as it goes on.

I'm not the one trying to pretend a bunch of imaginary definition that I made up are real. that's you.

They didn't come from my imagination.

rof Things which aren't real are imaginary.

They came from the concepts upon which the country was founded, which can be found in innumerable writings of the men who did so, and in the Enlightenment literature from which they drew, not to mention the entire history of English law.

No, they didn't. You made them up in order to pretend your position is accurate.

That you don't want it to be so will not make it any less so.

Again, there's this thing called a dictionary. In it, you can find definitions for words. If the "definition" you are using does not come from a dictionary, it's imaginary.

That's bull****.

Nonsense. Just because you don't want to admit it, doesn't make it any less true.

It worked just fine for those considered to be part of society

So basically, it worked to preserve what the government dictated "freedom" to be for the people it decided to admit were people, but when it comes down to actual people 9not just those the government decided to not treat like animals) and real freedom (not just what the government decided to dictate to be freedom) it failed miserably.

You can keep flailing if you like

How is proving your positions false, even if you are too frightened to admit it, "flailing"?

what I said is correct

Now who's sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "nuh uh!!!!"

Here's the sad fact you are too scared to admit: if you cannot cite a real definition of the words which support your are arguing, you haven't got a valid argument. But **** dictionaries, right? What do they know about defining words? Harshaw can make up a better definition in two seconds flat to suit his arguments and rationality and logic be damned!

So, puff out your chest, be stubborn, and convince yourself you're right.

said the guy who refuses to acknowledge the fact that no dictionary exists on Earth which supports the definition of the word he made up in a fit of glorious hypocrisy

 

[Perotista]

Yes, the sparsely populated states have more power than they would have without the EC. What we have in California is a state wide sort of version of the rural vs urban conflict. The people of the San Francisco Bay Area and the LA Basin so totally outvote the rest of the state that there is little chance that the rural agricultural parts will have any say about anything.

I understand there is yet another move afoot to split California into northern and southern states, creating the new state of Jackson.

Were that impossible dream to ever become a reality, we'd have 51 states, including one more red one with sparse population.

I think in theory it is true about sparsely populated states. But where do the presidential candidates campaign, they campaign in New York, California, Florida, etc, not in Wyoming, Idaho etc. I suppose having two senators from Wyoming and two from California give credit to this theory. But the senate is to represent the states, not the people which is the house's job. Direct elections of senators instead of being appointed by the state legislatures as envisioned by the framers, sort of makes the senate a miniature house. It was the idea of the framers the states would tell their senators how to vote on certain issues, not as it is today, the political party. So the senate really does not represent the states anymore.

 

[Tucker Case]

Under your theory, the citizens of just a few states could dictate to the rest of the country how all were to live.

I'm not saying that representative democracy isn't preferable to direct democracy across the board, but if the goal was to empower the people, representative democracy is not the way to go.

This government was designed by a small group of elitists and they designed aspects of it so that it can be decided in part by "...men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

They could ignore the needs of the others and run the country as they saw fit.

Which isn't really all that different form what we have now.

That's not what this country is about.

the country was about not paying taxes to the king.

I don't think you've thought this through.

I have thought it through a great deal. I'v read the federalist and anti-federalist papers numerous times. I've seen what the results of this government are. I don't think you'e actually thought about it at ALL. You buy into the lie that has been told about our government empowering about the people. It doesn't. If it was, there'd be a totally different system than what we have. Proportional representation at the very least.

I prefer Switzerland's system, like I said. It minimizes disenfranchisement and adheres to small government principles far better than we do.

 

[ocean515]

I'm not saying that representative democracy isn't preferable to direct democracy across the board, but if the goal was to empower the people, representative democracy is not the way to go.

This government was designed by a small group of elitists and they designed aspects of it so that it can be decided in part by "...men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."





Which isn't really all that different form what we have now.



the country was about not paying taxes to the king.



I have thought it through a great deal. I'v read the federalist and anti-federalist papers numerous times. I've seen what the results of this government are. I don't think you'e actually thought about it at ALL. You buy into the lie that has been told about our government empowering about the people. It doesn't. If it was, there'd be a totally different system than what we have. Proportional representation at the very least.

I prefer Switzerland's system, like I said. It minimizes disenfranchisement and adheres to small government principles far better than we do.

I appreciate your opinion, but my experience has given me the wisdom to know differently.

I don't buy into lies. Just as you shouldn't buy into the lies about Switzerland's glowing paradise.

 

[Slartibartfast]

You seem to be confusing freedom with anarchy. There is no God given freedom to rape rob and pillage, that is not freedom that is criminal behavior engaged in by sick, evil and or twisted people. Maybe if you modified your position and said government limits the freedom of criminals you would be on more firm ground.

LOL. you should read up on the philosophical underpinnings of the founding fathers, such as Russou and Locke, because the state of nature where people can do whatever they please is the start of that very philosophy you espouse.

 

[Harshaw]

<Malum in se is "that which is inherently wrong". It's a justification for making something a crime.





So if you quote a politician telling a lie, it makes the lie true? :lol:





I'm not the one trying to pretend a bunch of imaginary definition that I made up are real. that's you.




rof Things which aren't real are imaginary.



No, they didn't. You made them up in order to pretend your position is accurate.



Again, there's this thing called a dictionary. In it, you can find definitions for words. If the "definition" you are using does not come from a dictionary, it's imaginary.






Nonsense. Just because you don't want to admit it, doesn't make it any less true.



So basically, it worked to preserve what the government dictated "freedom" to be for the people it decided to admit were people, but when it comes down to actual people 9not just those the government decided to not treat like animals) and real freedom (not just what the government decided to dictate to be freedom) it failed miserably.



How is proving your positions false, even if you are too frightened to admit it, "flailing"?



Now who's sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "nuh uh!!!!"

Here's the sad fact you are too scared to admit: if you cannot cite a real definition of the words which support your are arguing, you haven't got a valid argument. But **** dictionaries, right? What do they know about defining words? Harshaw can make up a better definition in two seconds flat to suit his arguments and rationality and logic be damned!



said the guy who refuses to acknowledge the fact that no dictionary exists on Earth which supports the definition of the word he made up in a fit of glorious hypocrisy

:shrug: What else can I say? You can repeat yourself as many times as you like. It won't change anything. You're yapping about things you have no idea about, just like someone who claims the theory of evolution is "just a theory" because he goes by "the dictionary."

 

[Carjosse]

LOL. you should read up on the philosophical underpinnings of the founding fathers, such as Russou and Locke, because the state of nature where people can do whatever they please is the start of that very philosophy you espouse.

That is probably one of the worst butcherings of a French name I have ever seen it is Rousseau. America basically skipped over his insistence on equality, one of the many things the French managed to get right. I would say that The Rights of Man and Citizen is by far superior to the American Bill of Rights.

 

[Slartibartfast]

That is probably one of the worst butcherings of a French name I have ever seen it is Rousseau. America basically skipped over his insistence on equality, one of the many things the French managed to get right. I would say that The Rights of Man and Citizen is by far superior to the American Bill of Rights.

Tis true, I didn't bother spellchecking it, but thats unimportant, at least to me.

The problem here is that too many people on this thread can't see the issue objectively and cannot help but be blinded by their love of their society to look at the issue in isolation.

 

[PirateMk1]

I would say that all governments exist to limit freedom in some way.

Our government is designed with the belief that it is best to minimize the limitations which are placed upon freedom.

That could be termed as "maximizing freedom" as well, but I want the fact that governments themselves exist to place limitations upon freedom for the good of society. Thus, my choice to word it as such.

I would tend to agree with your statement about government in general with the caveat that in our particular situation while we have limitation in one sense , delimits us in another thus making it a wash or a net positive for MORE freedom.

I would also say that anarchy by definition is not society. Society by definition is a set of limitations. One could go so far as to say there is no such thing as true freedom as anarchy tends to be self limiting at least in a general sense.

 

[Tucker Case]

I don't buy into lies.

Nonsense. The following indicates that not only do you buy into them, you make them up for yourself.

Just as you shouldn't buy into the lies about Switzerland's glowing paradise.

Who said anything abou t"glowing paradise? That's just some nonsense you made up to pretend you are correct. I said their system us "better". Are you really so uincaopabel of comprehending what you read that you think "better" = glowing paradise"?

 

[Tucker Case]

:shrug: What else can I say? You can repeat yourself as many times as you like. It won't change anything. You're yapping about things you have no idea about, just like someone who claims the theory of evolution is "just a theory" because he goes by "the dictionary."

Said the guy who thinks imaginary definition > real definition

 

[Tucker Case]

I would tend to agree with your statement about government in general with the caveat that in our particular situation while we have limitation in one sense , delimits us in another thus making it a wash or a net positive for MORE freedom.

More freedom as compared to some other forms of government, sure, but there are still other forms of government that restrict freedom less than ours does.

I would also say that anarchy by definition is not society. Society by definition is a set of limitations. One could go so far as to say there is no such thing as true freedom as anarchy tends to be self limiting at least in a general sense.

I'm in full agreement. "Anarchist society" is an oxymoron.

 

[Tucker Case]

They would impose some form of government, no doubt, a sort of "do as I say or else" form of government.

Exactly. It would not be a case where there was an "absence of government". It would be a collection of small dictatorships.

 

[ocean515]

Nonsense. The following indicates that not only do you buy into them, you make them up for yourself.



Who said anything abou t"glowing paradise? That's just some nonsense you made up to pretend you are correct. I said their system us "better". Are you really so uincaopabel of comprehending what you read that you think "better" = glowing paradise"?

I am very capable, thank you. I matters not what you think of me.

On the issue of Switzerland, this better system, as you put it, took until 1971 for women to get the right to vote in federal elections.

Awesome way to do things in that direct democracy thing.

Why don't you pack up the attitude and sell it somewhere else?