[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Oh, and as for the ‘silence is deafening’ - melodramatic, and silly.[/quote]
It might have been, but it got you to answer, didn’t it? Up until that point you didn’t respond. By the way, I didn’t write the original post, so why don’t you direct your comments to that person as well?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Did they? You need to explain this out - this was essentially the argument of the Confederacy before and during the Civil War.
Moreover, show me where the Founders thought that people could just ‘stop being governed’. The Constitution contains a clause allowing the government to suppress Insurrections and Rebellions, so your are running out of options outside of electing new people to represent you if you don’t like the old ones.[/quote]
The constitutions allows for both peaceful assembly and the right to bear arms.
Peaceful assembly allows people to do what they did just before rising up against Britain. Get together, discuss the issue, and decide they don’t like it. Bearing arms allows them to shrug off their oppressor.
Check into it. Of course the state is able to perpetuate itself, but the power is really in the hands of the people… and that is where it should be. The people are abiding by their government, but at some point that could change, but honestly I hope it would never come to that.
Making sure that people could make that decision is important though. It forces the government to realize that there is a point which is too far, even if only conceptually.
It isn’t sophistry at all. You completely avoid the concept I am talking about in this thread. People, you and I, are inherently empowered to make choices. The fact we generally choose to abide by convention and rules doesn’t mean we actually have to.
This is not the same type of war-time that people have traditionally been exposed to. It also isn’t something that has had a traditional declaration of war attached to it.
Heh, of course you do. The issue with governments is that you have to watch them like a hawk at all times. Once the dangers are realized it is already too late.
What you are complaining about is purely vigilence. To me, it is my duty to watch the government, to keep it on the straight and narrow at all times, to ensure that it always answers to the citizens and never finds itself in a situation where it is ripe for a power grab.
There are always people willing to grab power. Why imagine that they won’t take the opportunity if it is present? I am virtually certain that if people weren’t bitching about the steps the president has taken so far, then he would find further steps to take. Again, this is a not a conservative or republican thing, this is a government power thing.
It’s the nature of the beast. The government is a powerful animal that isn’t quite tame. Don’t turn your back on it for a moment…
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Oh, and as for the ‘silence is deafening’ - melodramatic, and silly.
It might have been, but it got you to answer, didn’t it? Up until that point you didn’t respond. By the way, I didn’t write the original post, so why don’t you direct your comments to that person as well?[/quote]
As you may have noticed, I was fielding conversations with both Vroom and ExNole. Not every point will be addressed as a matter of practicality.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Oh, and as for the ‘silence is deafening’ - melodramatic, and silly.
It might have been, but it got you to answer, didn’t it? Up until that point you didn’t respond. By the way, I didn’t write the original post, so why don’t you direct your comments to that person as well?
As you may have noticed, I was fielding conversations with both Vroom and ExNole. Not every point will be addressed as a matter of practicality.
[/quote]
Duly noted.
[quote]vroom wrote:
The constitutions allows for both peaceful assembly and the right to bear arms.
Peaceful assembly allows people to do what they did just before rising up against Britain. Get together, discuss the issue, and decide they don’t like it. Bearing arms allows them to shrug off their oppressor.[/quote]
This is lunacy. If you don’t like laws that are being passed by Congress, you have no right to ‘shrug’ them off and live however you want by use of congregation and force.
Moreover, the US was not part of a representative democracy with Britain. Once a state opts into a representative democracy, it does so in perpetuity, and has no ‘right’ to opt out.
We already settled that question in the early to mid 1860s. As I said earlier, your premise was dealt with by Andrew Jackson in the Nullification Crisis and Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War - and the question was answered.
If a law is passed you don’t like, it doesn’t follow that the people have lost power - you have just lost the battle of ideas.
In a functioning democracy, there is no need for a revolution - you have a voice. You may not win the day, but living in a democracy means playing by its rules. For example, when the Southern states decided they didn’t like the way the anti-slavery rules were shaping at the national level, they decided to secede - exactly what you are suggesting as a viable plan when you think the government is ‘oppressing’ you. But democracy doesn’t mean being a part of it only when laws are passed that you like, which Lincoln explained to the South with the business end of a muzzle loader.
And, there is not this conceptual difference between the ‘state’ and ‘the people’ you keep referring to, not in a representative democracy.
And as far as ‘checking into it’, you need to get up to speed on American history - this concept that you can take up some guns and shrug off the federal or state government when you don’t like the laws being passed are for neo-Confederates and the yahoos in Montana.
This is a side I haven’t seen from you, Vroom - it is paranoid and dangerously ignorant of history.
By the way, I am for vigilance - I don’t argue otherwise. But this idea that we can shake off our government when we don’t like where it is headed - even though, as a matter of Constitutional right, the ‘government’ can use the full might of the military to suppress Insurrections and Rebellions - is not viable and can no legitimated by claiming the Founders thought it that way.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Oh, and as for the ‘silence is deafening’ - melodramatic, and silly.[/quote]
You seem to have captured AL’s essence pretty well.
I would only add hate filled to round it out.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
This is lunacy. If you don’t like laws that are being passed by Congress, you have no right to ‘shrug’ them off and live however you want by use of congregation and force.
Moreover, the US was not part of a representative democracy with Britain. Once a state opts into a representative democracy, it does so in perpetuity, and has no ‘right’ to opt out. [/quote]
No, it is not lunacy. The fact that the government is a representative democracy does not mean that it cannot be changed in the future.
The US had no ‘right’ to opt out of being a British colony either. However, that doesn’t mean that it can’t do so, if it is willing and able to do so. Do you think I’m saying there is a defined process which does not involve war or risk of war?
No, this didn’t settle the issue for perpetuity. It may be comforting for you to think so, and it may certainly be possible for the government to hang on by force, in perpetuity, but it is only because the population is willing to let it.
You are missing the philosophical points of this discussion.
Who has said that you need to like every law that is passed? That is hardly the issue here it all, you are just trivializing the discussion.
Yes, but consider this, if the issue hadn’t been as it was, and the PEOPLE of the north were not willing to fight and die for the ideals the government was upholding, then the outcome would have been very different.
I know you want to wrap yourself in the blanket of democracy and feel safe, but really, it is about the government being able to be representative to the people, such that they are not forced to find an alternative to the government.
So, in the USSR, before the fall of communism, was there a divide between ‘the people’ and ‘the state’? As the government gets bigger, less responsive and more powerful, it is very possible for there to be a bigger divide.
Hell, I’m not saying you are an inch away from revolution, relax. I’m talking about the fact that people have the complete right, en masse, to change the way they wish to be governed. Of course, it may result in a fight, if enough other people disagree, but this is how history has shaped the planet.
You think revolutions never happen?
American history is pretty short in the history of the world. It’s great that there hasn’t been the need for the people to revolt against the government, and if things go well, hopefully they never will, but you seem a bit shortsighted in your analysis of how things have worked historically.
It is precisely this blind trust you place in your government that MAY eventually let is increase it’s power beyond the point that it remains responsive.
I’m not paranoid at all. I’m not expecting history to do anything except that which it has always done. The powerful try to increase their power, and eventually the people become unhappy with their government. That is history.
I honestly don’t expect any such thing to happen within my lifetime. However, it’s my job to keep an eye on the government and voice my concerns about it. You obviously see things differently, there is no need to villify the way I view governments and their propensity grow.
[quote]By the way, I am for vigilance - I don’t argue otherwise. But this idea that we can shake off our government when we don’t like where it is headed - even though, as a matter of Constitutional right, the ‘government’ can use the full might of the military to suppress Insurrections and Rebellions - is not viable and can no legitimated by claiming the Founders thought it that way.
[/quote]
Again, you miss the point. When the government is so corrupt, such as in the USSR in the past, even the military will long for a path other than crushing it’s own civilians because the government wants to stay in existence.
In China, we have another example of people getting crushed by the government, because either not enough people were involved, or not enough leaders in the government felt the same way.
People are always attempting to throw off the yoke of corrupt and controlling governments. Once again, I am not saying we have such a government around here, but to me, it is important not to let the government get to the point where it is not appropriately responsive.
Unrestricted police powers and complete ability to control the media are harbingers of this. We don’t have this. Yippee! However, any country is only one emergency and a series of bad decisions away from falling down a dangerous slope.
Agree or don’t, but don’t imagine history has much to say other than that people wrest power away from other people when they are incredibly unhappy with the use of that power.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Liberal= Professor X, ALDurr, Harris447, vroom, thunderbolt23, FightinIrish…
Conservative= BostonBarrister, Zap Branigan, Headhunter, Rainjack, ZEB,…
Moron= lucasa
This is an example of the problem. People like you putting others into nice, neat little categories and attaching specific characteristics to those categories, regardless if they really fit those characteristics or not. Interesting though that you didn’t put yourself in either category.[/quote]
LMFAO, I hope your just playing along.
If not, just so we’re clear I didn’t attach any characteristics to either category. On top of that, you admit you don’t even know which party I favor. You should know out of all the people listed, you are the only one to react in such a fomented manner (so far). Do you have a problem being associated with the people I listed? Please feel free to differentiate yourself.
As for me, why would I label myself? I clearly don’t fit into either category and quite frankly I hate being labelled.
But since you asked, I’m most in favor of paying higher taxes so that we can increase government spending on the testing of stem cells in animals and maybe illegal immigrants (if it cured gayness, that would get priority), whichever party that guy falls in, he’s got my vote.
[quote]vroom wrote:
(text)
[/quote]
Going back and forth on point to point is not going anywhere - and I have a serious question:
Was the South right to secede? Was Lincoln wrong to wage war against them for doing so?
I am just curious as to your opinion here - after all, the Confederacy was under the exact same thinking you are advocating here: that when you think the federal government has begun to oppress you, it is time to pack up and throw off that government.
So, was the South right to secede?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Going back and forth on point to point is not going anywhere - and I have a serious question:
Was the South right to secede? Was Lincoln wrong to wage war against them for doing so?
I am just curious as to your opinion here - after all, the Confederacy was under the exact same thinking you are advocating here: that when you think the federal government has begun to oppress you, it is time to pack up and throw off that government.
So, was the South right to secede?
[/quote]
Going back and forth was enlightening actually.
Anyway, your question is tough to answer in the manner you have framed it. I don’t think it is a “right or wrong” type of situation, though there are moral issues underneath it that have their own very significant “right or wrong” characterizations.
The fact that we don’t agree with the thinking of other people doesn’t immediately make it wrong (and I am talking about seceding, not slavery). At that period society or humanity was coming to certain realizations, which before then hadn’t been completely recognized and accepted.
So, the issue boils down to a nation divided. A large group of the population basically revolted against government authority. The government, through force, managed to reexert authority over those people.
If the government failed to do so, there would probably be two countries residing within the states that currently make up the US. If they were both democracies with different rules and laws, who could say which was better, assuming of course that slavery and institutional racism were still eliminated.
Similarly, would it be “wrong” for each state in the US to be an independent country if they all had representative democracies?
Now, if you get less philosophical and worship the current state of affairs in your country, then anything which would have had things turn out different would be “wrong”.
People always revolt against their government based on principles. It has to be over important things, or they wouldn’t risk their lives to stop what they feel is an unjust government from trying to exert authority over them.
I hesitate to call it “wrong” for a society to decide it’s government is not representative and decide to form a different government. Was it wrong for the students in China to demonstrate? The government would obviously say so, because those students did not respect the authority of the government.
Is it right to always respect authority?
So, no, I guess I can’t really answer your question. I can pick and choose right and wrong concerning the moral issues involved in societies decisions, but I find it hard to decide a society is wrong for deciding it needs to reject it’s government.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
vroom wrote:
(text)
Going back and forth on point to point is not going anywhere - and I have a serious question:
Was the South right to secede? Was Lincoln wrong to wage war against them for doing so?
I am just curious as to your opinion here - after all, the Confederacy was under the exact same thinking you are advocating here: that when you think the federal government has begun to oppress you, it is time to pack up and throw off that government.
So, was the South right to secede?
[/quote]
I would have thought that it would be…the “American Way” to secede. Especially when it was such a large part of the populace that disagreed- it was 9 million people and half of the land of the established country, not some crazy fucks in Waco.
There are still people who try to call the Civil War the Second War for Independence or whatever.
I often wonder, had I been alive back then, would I have supported the war? I’m a big time student of the Civil War, so the question always kind of bamboozles me.
On the one hand, Americans kiling Americans is bad. So is forcing a third of the country to think your way, at the point of a bayonet. Suspending Habeas Corpus was yet another bad, bad thing.
On the other hand, the greatest evil in America’s history, that of slavery.
So I think I would say states’ rights be damned, and I wouldn’t have given a flying fuck if the South left. I probably wouldn’t have fought for that.
But slavery? I would have given my life in a Union uniform to see that ended.
So, I don’t think that you can remove the political motivation for the Civil War (or at least the spoken one, which was preservation) from the moral one (slavery) and the economic one (slavery on a different level).
Was Lincoln right? I just don’t know. Its my express belief that Lincoln’s goal was ending slavery, but slowly, certainly not in the bloody and riotous way that the Civil War ended up being.
I think I would have been for the war on the basis of ending slavery at any cost, but I would not have been terribly fond of Lincoln himself. Although you never know, because I might have seen some extremely admirable qualities about him.
Through 20/20 hindsight though, Lincoln is probably my biggest hero and I am a huge admirer of everything about him.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I only have time for a short reply, but I am an unabashed Unionist, despite being Southern.
As another famous Southerner noted prior to the Civil War:
“Disunion by armed force is treason.”
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I only have time for a short reply, but I am an unabashed Unionist, despite being Southern.
As another famous Southerner noted prior to the Civil War:
“Disunion by armed force is treason.”
[/quote]
Not that I don’t agree, but isn’t that what we did with Britain though?
[quote]lucasa wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Liberal= Professor X, ALDurr, Harris447, vroom, thunderbolt23, FightinIrish…
Conservative= BostonBarrister, Zap Branigan, Headhunter, Rainjack, ZEB,…
Moron= lucasa
This is an example of the problem. People like you putting others into nice, neat little categories and attaching specific characteristics to those categories, regardless if they really fit those characteristics or not. Interesting though that you didn’t put yourself in either category.
LMFAO, I hope your just playing along.
If not, just so we’re clear I didn’t attach any characteristics to either category. On top of that, you admit you don’t even know which party I favor. You should know out of all the people listed, you are the only one to react in such a fomented manner (so far). Do you have a problem being associated with the people I listed? Please feel free to differentiate yourself.
[/quote]
He was the only one to react because most of us know any debate with you is as pointless as expecting wisdom to come from Headhunter.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Not that I don’t agree, but isn’t that what we did with Britain though?[/quote]
Holy crap, is this a serious question?
You don’t see the moral-philosophical distinction between separating from a monarchy that denied self-government to its subjects and separating from a self-governing constitutional republican Union that you assented to join in perpetuity?
Please tell me you are kidding.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Not that I don’t agree, but isn’t that what we did with Britain though?
Holy crap, is this a serious question?
You don’t see the moral-philosophical distinction between separating from a monarchy that denied self-government to its subjects and separating from a self-governing constitutional republican Union that you assented to join in perpetuity?
Please tell me you are kidding.
[/quote]
It wasn’t a comment that I thought that deeply about. There is a difference, of course, especially in relation to the monarchy vs. republic deal.
But it seems to me that both had a right to seperate. I don’t agree with the South’s rebellion because of the system that they were trying to preserve. However, both wars were over economics. It just seems that one had as much right to leave as the other.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
He was the only one to react because most of us know any debate with you is as pointless as expecting wisdom to come from Headhunter.
[/quote]
Wow, Prof. “eat big, lift hard, get big” X has graced me with a reply as well! And with his usual manna-like orts of wisdoms no less!
Tell me, as a liberal, do you generally take it upon yourself to speak on behalf of others or just when you feel the need to attempt insulting myself or Headhunter?
As for wisdom, maybe I should’ve dumbed it down for ALDurr (and you via your defense), “Sticks and stones may break my bones but superficial political labels will never hurt me.”
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Professor X wrote:
He was the only one to react because most of us know any debate with you is as pointless as expecting wisdom to come from Headhunter.
Wow, Prof. “eat big, lift hard, get big” X has graced me with a reply as well! And with his usual manna-like orts of wisdoms no less!
Tell me, as a liberal, do you generally take it upon yourself to speak on behalf of others or just when you feel the need to attempt insulting myself or Headhunter?
As for wisdom, maybe I should’ve dumbed it down for ALDurr (and you via your defense), “Sticks and stones may break my bones but superficial political labels will never hurt me.”[/quote]
I’m not a liberal. That means there are two things you have wrong. One being that you think you know me, and the other being that you think you are much smarter than you appear to be.
[quote]vroom wrote:
A liberal believes the government must respect the people, while a conservative believes the people must respect the institutions of government.
I know, I know, hack away…[/quote]
No, I’d say that’s pretty spot on.
Meanwhile, an anarchist believes that both of these beliefs are unfounded in reality, for what government in history has ever respected the people, or has ever been really worthy of respect?
V
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
vroom wrote:
No, the founders had something a little different in mind. They actually encouraged the government to realize that the populace could choose to stop being governed, not just elect a different set of clowns.
Did they? You need to explain this out - this was essentially the argument of the Confederacy before and during the Civil War.
Moreover, show me where the Founders thought that people could just ‘stop being governed’. The Constitution contains a clause allowing the government to suppress Insurrections and Rebellions, so your are running out of options outside of electing new people to represent you if you don’t like the old ones.
[/quote]
“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.”
Abraham Lincoln, inaugural address, 1861. The South was stupid enough to believe him.