[quote]jj-dude wrote:
Prohibition was repealed. I would argue that the First Amendment has a lot more in it than people want to accept, especially given today’s sensibilities about social justice. See, at that time everyone had to be a member of the Church of England. Failure to attend was a criminal offense, tithes were required by law and the church had its own court system that could sentence you to death even. Most of the people in the Colonies at the point were not interested in the COE (French, Irish, German immigrants etc.) Everyone back then keenly felt that having the State in a position to also legislate morality was a disaster for all. (The Puritans left because they were more forward thinking than most of their fellows and saw the upcoming 30 Year’s War as a natural outgrowth of states mixing with religions. They “made haste from Babylon” in their memorable phrase.) Properly speaking, this was the only example they had back then. What else but a religion makes overarching moral claims? I believe that the better reading of the First Amendment is “Congress shall pass no law promoting a morality or ethical position.” Prohibition is but an example of why this is wise. The War on Drugs is another good example of moral crusades that turn into a morass.
With the demise of religion, most of the charitable things they did (help the poor, redistribute wealth, sermonize against the evils of alcohol, take care of the sick or elderly etc.) became secular social causes. An emphasis on social justice now means laws are being passed to do churchy things but as long as they are arguably marketed as secular, a narrow reading of the First Amendment says that’s ok.
As for slavery, it has been a universal in every culture everywhere at all times until very, very recently. Nobody “imposed” it initially and it arises spontaneously since if I lack food but pledge my labor to you for a time, I eat. It is still prevalent in places that do not have a service economy. Yes, that is right. The rise of the service economy destroyed slavery. It also destroyed gender roles (women don’t need a man or his family to take care of them if they can just go buy it all at Walmart on the cheap) and a lot of other things we consider bad. It is precisely those places where there is no services-based economy that slavery in various forms flourishes still. That is the bottom line for survival if you have nothing. Were there a massive economic collapse, we’d probably end up with slaves again in all but name within a few decades. Think about that.
I don’t believe for a minute that guns are all that stand between us and slavery. You shouldn’t either. Go get your gun and see how it works against that drone. No, the intent of the American Revolution was twofold to (a) let citizens live their lives and (2) make the government play by its own rules, which for most of US history has admirably been the case. It has been in the last 40 years or so that this has gotten way out of hand. Gun ownership stands as a litmus test now in several ways. One is what side of the progressive or supposedly conservative divide you stand on – that is the least interesting but loudest. The other, actually, is (or should be) some form or registration (almost no gun owners contest this or for that matter screenings) and how will it be used. (Note that the murder rate I gave in 1910 is still lower than today and guns were much, much easier to come by then. There was no gang/drug violence though which accounts for much of the murder rate.)
If gun ownership were treated more like car ownership I doubt there would be much of an issue anywhere. The de facto position of the government is that since some criminals own guns, everyone who owns one is a probable cancer in the body politic. In other words, the people themselves are seen as being a threat to the country. If this is the case, what purpose does the government serve? The question, then, is this: has the government lost the idea that it serves the people? It is this feeling across the political spectrum that fuels most public discourse with finger pointing and blaming falling squarely on ideological lines. That should not be the case. The real political question is, as it has been for 2 centuries of liberty vs. authoritarianism.
Full of shit as always,
– jj[/quote]
I like your view of the First Amendment, but who determines whether or not something violates it? The government.
The “slavery” you speak of sounds more like indentured servitude. I have no doubt that people will voluntarily submit to that if conditions are bad enough. Indentured servitude allows initial competition and freedom of choice in masters, working conditions, terms, etc. By definition, a slave is property-forever, and I don’t believe anyone has ever voluntarily submitted to the loss of all rights(at least not when it’s represented that way). I believe conquered peoples typically have slavery forced on them.
The government can’t use drones to defeat a huge number of its own people. If one group has to kill almost all of another group to win a war, the cost-to-benefit ratio is too high. Wars are fought for control, and if one group is killed off, then that war is pointless. That’s also ignoring the fact that the number of armed folks in this country is far, far greater than the number of military soldiers, politicians, police officers, etc. Adrian Peterson can certainly run over any 10 year old he wants, but if 50 10 year olds decide they are going to tackle him, he’s getting tackled.
The only reason the government doesn’t take our cars(besides the fact that we’re a pretty heavily armed people) is that car ownership poses little danger to It.