Good news...
-
Oakman wrote:
You want lezzie faire or you don't.
No, I don't.
Oakman wrote:
None of this "maximising the opportunity."
It is important to keep things separate from the state, to keep as much responsibility as possible out of the hands of the state and in the hands of the people. Free market capitalism is one means of doing that, as is the christian religion. Obviously the governmetn must maintain some degree of control of the legal system which binds us all. So there can be no absolute dividing line. We need the state to maintain a system of common laws, and national defense, but for much of anything else. Somehow I don't think Barney would agree with any of that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is important to keep things separate from the state, to keep as much responsibility as possible out of the hands of the state and in the hands of the people
In a democracy the state is the people, and the people are the state.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Free market capitalism is one means of doing that, as is the christian religion.
You are not supposed to call it the christian religion if it has no connection with the teachings of Christ. The Christian Left[^] thinks you guys have hijacked their religion. BTW, there are many atheists who are followers of the secular Christ, i.e. they disregard the theology and follow Him as a social reformer. Karl Marx was probably one of them ;P
-
Oakman wrote:
Stamp out ideas at all costs. Burn some books, institute the anti-fairness doctrine on the media. . .Otherwise, people might think for themselves!
What is the point of people thinking for themselves if they are denied the political power to actually implement their own principles as law in their own communities? You are the one who would deny them that, not me. In your world, the only people who get to do any thinking for themselves are the all wise and knowing Judges.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Can't imagine that Obama will be the New Stalin in "Uncle Sam's" clothes. So I suspect free speech will not be denied to you. As far as judges are concerned, speaking from a British point of view, they interpret law where a previous interpretation either has not occurred or where such a previous interpretation exists is in some aspect deemed wrongful. However, where a statute is deficient in a particular aspect then High Court judges can and do create law. But in terms of law creation, this will at some time be reviewed either by "The Law Lords" or by Parliament. One of the primary reasons for High Court judges creating law or interpreting law is because the statute is poorly worded or poorly constructed or suffers from vagueness. Judges are not "All wise and Knowing". They have to function within a narrow viewpoint.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is important to keep things separate from the state, to keep as much responsibility as possible out of the hands of the state and in the hands of the people
In a democracy the state is the people, and the people are the state.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Free market capitalism is one means of doing that, as is the christian religion.
You are not supposed to call it the christian religion if it has no connection with the teachings of Christ. The Christian Left[^] thinks you guys have hijacked their religion. BTW, there are many atheists who are followers of the secular Christ, i.e. they disregard the theology and follow Him as a social reformer. Karl Marx was probably one of them ;P
Otto von Drunkencoder wrote:
In a democracy the state is the people, and the people are the state.
That is precisely why we are not a democracy.
Otto von Drunkencoder wrote:
You are not supposed to call it the christian religion if it has no connection with the teachings of Christ. The Christian Left[^] thinks you guys have hijacked their religion.
So your interpretation is the only valid interpretation of the teachings of christ? Did God tell you that?
Otto von Drunkencoder wrote:
BTW, there are many atheists who are followers of the secular Christ, i.e. they disregard the theology and follow Him as a social reformer. Karl Marx was probably one of them
That is altogether obvious. In fact, liberalism is little else aside from christianity minus God. That is what makes the entire 'separation of church and state' argument so entirely moot. To the left, Government is religion. It is how they promote their own moral agenda. But that is entirely the opposite of the imporatance of true Christianity. True chrisitanity is not of this world, but of the next. It has no need for government in any way. That is precisely why it fits so comfortably into the context of Jeffersonian democracy. Few other religions would.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Sunday, February 22, 2009 8:59 AM
-
Can't imagine that Obama will be the New Stalin in "Uncle Sam's" clothes. So I suspect free speech will not be denied to you. As far as judges are concerned, speaking from a British point of view, they interpret law where a previous interpretation either has not occurred or where such a previous interpretation exists is in some aspect deemed wrongful. However, where a statute is deficient in a particular aspect then High Court judges can and do create law. But in terms of law creation, this will at some time be reviewed either by "The Law Lords" or by Parliament. One of the primary reasons for High Court judges creating law or interpreting law is because the statute is poorly worded or poorly constructed or suffers from vagueness. Judges are not "All wise and Knowing". They have to function within a narrow viewpoint.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Can't imagine that Obama will be the New Stalin in "Uncle Sam's" clothes. So I suspect free speech will not be denied to you.
Effective free speech (meaning free speech that actually carries meangingful political importance) has been denied to Americans for many decades now. I don't blame Obama for that, but he will certainly accelerate that unfortunant precedent.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
As far as judges are concerned, speaking from a British point of view, they interpret law where a previous interpretation either has not occurred or where such a previous interpretation exists is in some aspect deemed wrongful. However, where a statute is deficient in a particular aspect then High Court judges can and do create law. But in terms of law creation, this will at some time be reviewed either by "The Law Lords" or by Parliament. One of the primary reasons for High Court judges creating law or interpreting law is because the statute is poorly worded or poorly constructed or suffers from vagueness. Judges are not "All wise and Knowing". They have to function within a narrow viewpoint.
Judges indeed exist to interpret the law. But when the highest laws of the land are clearly defined yet blatantly ignored by the courts for the express purpose of ripping control of society out of the hands of the people, than there is most certainly a problem. The courts should be considered no more above the law than any other branch of government.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Otto von Drunkencoder wrote:
In a democracy the state is the people, and the people are the state.
That is precisely why we are not a democracy.
Otto von Drunkencoder wrote:
You are not supposed to call it the christian religion if it has no connection with the teachings of Christ. The Christian Left[^] thinks you guys have hijacked their religion.
So your interpretation is the only valid interpretation of the teachings of christ? Did God tell you that?
Otto von Drunkencoder wrote:
BTW, there are many atheists who are followers of the secular Christ, i.e. they disregard the theology and follow Him as a social reformer. Karl Marx was probably one of them
That is altogether obvious. In fact, liberalism is little else aside from christianity minus God. That is what makes the entire 'separation of church and state' argument so entirely moot. To the left, Government is religion. It is how they promote their own moral agenda. But that is entirely the opposite of the imporatance of true Christianity. True chrisitanity is not of this world, but of the next. It has no need for government in any way. That is precisely why it fits so comfortably into the context of Jeffersonian democracy. Few other religions would.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Sunday, February 22, 2009 8:59 AM
Stan Shannon wrote:
In fact, liberalism is little else aside from christianity minus God... True chrisitanity is not of this world.
So you waiting to go to the other world to do good deeds?? You want the will of Satan to prevail on this earth ? That's so lame X|
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Can't imagine that Obama will be the New Stalin in "Uncle Sam's" clothes. So I suspect free speech will not be denied to you.
Effective free speech (meaning free speech that actually carries meangingful political importance) has been denied to Americans for many decades now. I don't blame Obama for that, but he will certainly accelerate that unfortunant precedent.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
As far as judges are concerned, speaking from a British point of view, they interpret law where a previous interpretation either has not occurred or where such a previous interpretation exists is in some aspect deemed wrongful. However, where a statute is deficient in a particular aspect then High Court judges can and do create law. But in terms of law creation, this will at some time be reviewed either by "The Law Lords" or by Parliament. One of the primary reasons for High Court judges creating law or interpreting law is because the statute is poorly worded or poorly constructed or suffers from vagueness. Judges are not "All wise and Knowing". They have to function within a narrow viewpoint.
Judges indeed exist to interpret the law. But when the highest laws of the land are clearly defined yet blatantly ignored by the courts for the express purpose of ripping control of society out of the hands of the people, than there is most certainly a problem. The courts should be considered no more above the law than any other branch of government.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
I find that you comments regarding "effective free speech" hard to accept. That free speech you think has been denied to you, does its history have something to do with the Communist Witch Hunt of the 1950's or is from an earlier era than that, or what? You would have thought that if the judges are violating their responsibilities that actions would have been taken to confine their activities to that which is within their sphere of relevance. Unless it is you who find their activities unacceptable where others find their activities as within functional boundaries.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
In fact, liberalism is little else aside from christianity minus God... True chrisitanity is not of this world.
So you waiting to go to the other world to do good deeds?? You want the will of Satan to prevail on this earth ? That's so lame X|
"My kingdom doesn't belong to this world. If my kingdom belonged to this world, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. My kingdom doesn't have its origin on earth."
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
I find that you comments regarding "effective free speech" hard to accept. That free speech you think has been denied to you, does its history have something to do with the Communist Witch Hunt of the 1950's or is from an earlier era than that, or what? You would have thought that if the judges are violating their responsibilities that actions would have been taken to confine their activities to that which is within their sphere of relevance. Unless it is you who find their activities unacceptable where others find their activities as within functional boundaries.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I find that you comments regarding "effective free speech" hard to accept. That free speech you think has been denied to you, does its history have something to do with the Communist Witch Hunt of the 1950's or is from an earlier era than that, or what?
The congressional inquiries into communist infiltration of our social institutions was entirely justified and did not represent a violation of anyone's rights in any way. Congress is supposed to do those kind of things. Thats what they are there for. Thats their proper constitutional role. The example I typically use is the flag burning issue. Anti-flag burning laws represent effective free speech. That is, someone in some community says "Hey, I think we need to protect the flag, the symbol of our country". Someone else says "I second that!" And it becomes a law in their little town. That is entirely constitutional. When the courts said "No, flag burning is a form of free speech", they effectively invalidated free speech. We have less freedom of speech now because of that decision than we had before. Can I burn a flag? Absolutely. But that is a meaningless act and not protected by anything actually in the constitution itself. I no longer have the power, as my ancestors had, to participate in the determination as to how the flag will be treated in my community.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
You would have thought that if the judges are violating their responsibilities that actions would have been taken to confine their activities to that which is within their sphere of relevance. Unless it is you who find their activities unacceptable where others find their activities as within functional boundaries.
Point taken. I've never actually said that the decisions of the courts are not valid in the sense that they are acceptable to most Americans. But the truth of the matter remains that throughout most of American history, such decisions were not made. It is a recent phenomenon that would have been appalling to most previous generations of Americans.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
"My kingdom doesn't belong to this world. If my kingdom belonged to this world, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. My kingdom doesn't have its origin on earth."
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
"My kingdom doesn't belong to this world. If my kingdom belonged to this world, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. My kingdom doesn't have its origin on earth."
Yeah,yeah. Remember the parable of the lost sheep and the rest of the things He said. You will be judged in the other world by your actions in this one. You go around trashing most of His teachings and subverting the essence of His message, and all of this knowingly, and not out of ignorance. You expect Him to be pleased when you report for your final assessment??? Guys like me will probably get a "satisfactory, but could have done better" and be given a harp and nice 8 cylinder cloud to travel around in :cool: But, you !!! You are in biiig trouble buddy! He is going to be sooooooo pissed with you, He will probably put you in the same cell as Ilion and Adnan X|
-
pseudonym67 wrote:
then and only then are people going to start thinking about doing things differently.
And what would that be? If things really are as bad as they are made out to be, what was the cause? The only solution I can see would be to simply divide up into separate societies. Let those of us who wish to live in a free market, capitalistic, jeffersonian society do so. And let those who don't go their own way. Let the experiment run its course unrestricted. In my Jeffersonian society, we would simply outlaw socialism of any flavor. Government would only be allowed to provide for the general welfare and nothing else, the courts would have no power beyond interpretation of the actual content of the constitution. In yours you could have governmetn be the center of all economic and social decision making. Let people vote with their feet as to which society they wish to live in. And let the one that survives take all.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
general welfare
What exactly do you mean by using those two words. It is in my opinion a vague promise to enhance the well being of the general population. And because it is a vague statement, how would you like your legal system re-defining it. You have this dislike of judges making interpretation of law yet those two words will continue to keep those judges employed. So, what do you exactly mean?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
"My kingdom doesn't belong to this world. If my kingdom belonged to this world, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. My kingdom doesn't have its origin on earth."
Yeah,yeah. Remember the parable of the lost sheep and the rest of the things He said. You will be judged in the other world by your actions in this one. You go around trashing most of His teachings and subverting the essence of His message, and all of this knowingly, and not out of ignorance. You expect Him to be pleased when you report for your final assessment??? Guys like me will probably get a "satisfactory, but could have done better" and be given a harp and nice 8 cylinder cloud to travel around in :cool: But, you !!! You are in biiig trouble buddy! He is going to be sooooooo pissed with you, He will probably put you in the same cell as Ilion and Adnan X|
Otto von Drunkencoder wrote:
Yeah,yeah. Remember the parable of the lost sheep and the rest of the things He said. You will be judged in the other world by your actions in this one. You go around trashing most of His teachings and subverting the essence of His message, and all of this knowingly, and not out of ignorance. You expect Him to be pleased when you report for your final assessment??? Guys like me will probably get a "satisfactory, but could have done better" and be given a harp and nice 8 cylinder cloud to travel around in But, you !!! You are in biiig trouble buddy! He is going to be sooooooo pissed with you, He will probably put you in the same cell as Ilion and Adnan
I glad you are so concerned about my salvation. However, that has nothing to do with my point. The point is that christianity has separation of church and state built into it from the beginning. I do not have to use government to promote my religion to be a christian. Its not part of the deal. few other religions are designed the same way.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
general welfare
What exactly do you mean by using those two words. It is in my opinion a vague promise to enhance the well being of the general population. And because it is a vague statement, how would you like your legal system re-defining it. You have this dislike of judges making interpretation of law yet those two words will continue to keep those judges employed. So, what do you exactly mean?
There is nothing vague about the phrase. If nothing else Madison in the federalist papers made the meaning quite explicite. "Geneal Welfare" means things which promote the general public good, things that benefit everyone equally. Therefore, building a road is 'general welfare'. Universal health care is not. Everyone is free to use the road as they please for whatever purposes they please, as long as they follow a set of common laws for that purpose. Universal health care requires forcing people who are perfectly capable of caring for their own health needs to participate economically in a system that diverts public funds to those who cannot. It is not 'general' welfare, it is 'specific' welfare - it requires an overt transfer of wealth from one group to another. One group benefits, another pays for that benefit and are thus renedered that much less able to care for their own needs as individuals. In only the most ludicrous way can that be considered 'general welfare' (ie - keeping the public healthy is good for all. Hell, that would include paying for everyone's food, housing, transportation, education, you could justify any redistribution scheme on such a rationale)
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I find that you comments regarding "effective free speech" hard to accept. That free speech you think has been denied to you, does its history have something to do with the Communist Witch Hunt of the 1950's or is from an earlier era than that, or what?
The congressional inquiries into communist infiltration of our social institutions was entirely justified and did not represent a violation of anyone's rights in any way. Congress is supposed to do those kind of things. Thats what they are there for. Thats their proper constitutional role. The example I typically use is the flag burning issue. Anti-flag burning laws represent effective free speech. That is, someone in some community says "Hey, I think we need to protect the flag, the symbol of our country". Someone else says "I second that!" And it becomes a law in their little town. That is entirely constitutional. When the courts said "No, flag burning is a form of free speech", they effectively invalidated free speech. We have less freedom of speech now because of that decision than we had before. Can I burn a flag? Absolutely. But that is a meaningless act and not protected by anything actually in the constitution itself. I no longer have the power, as my ancestors had, to participate in the determination as to how the flag will be treated in my community.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
You would have thought that if the judges are violating their responsibilities that actions would have been taken to confine their activities to that which is within their sphere of relevance. Unless it is you who find their activities unacceptable where others find their activities as within functional boundaries.
Point taken. I've never actually said that the decisions of the courts are not valid in the sense that they are acceptable to most Americans. But the truth of the matter remains that throughout most of American history, such decisions were not made. It is a recent phenomenon that would have been appalling to most previous generations of Americans.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Those who burn the flag are in effect protesting against something they dislike/distrust/find foul with. Those who protect the flag are essentially putting that flag onto a higher pedestal, becoming almost religious in context, a rallying point.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Those who protect the flag are essentially putting that flag onto a higher pedestal, becoming almost religious in context, a rallying point.
And where does the constitution say specifically that we cannot do that? Where does it specifically remove the poewr of we the people to protect those artifacts of our culture that we wish to protect?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
So do I take it that you are approving of personal debt but not government debt?
What I approve of is maximizing the opportunity for those things that can function outside the direct control of government, democratic or otherwise, to do so.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
You want lezzie faire
No, he doesn't. Stan hates those homos. :rolleyes:
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
Tim Craig wrote:
No, he doesn't. Stan hates those homos.
Wasn't it Will Rogers who said, "I never met a dyke I didn't like?"
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Those who protect the flag are essentially putting that flag onto a higher pedestal, becoming almost religious in context, a rallying point.
And where does the constitution say specifically that we cannot do that? Where does it specifically remove the poewr of we the people to protect those artifacts of our culture that we wish to protect?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
I don't know the extent of the ruling but as a viewpoint, the judges who said what they said might have done so because if the flag becomes almost religious in context that could cause constitutional difficulties in terms of "separation of state from church", and with church being religious and the flag almost gaining that kind of context, you can probably see the difficulties they may have assumed. But then, that may not be at all relevant to their deliberations, and probably was not.
-
I have found if I turn off the radio, don't read the paper, keep the TV off except for netflix movies I have a much pleasanter disposition. On the down side when I go to work (I support a federal agency as a contractor) I hear the feds talk about writing this proposal and that proposal to get a hunk of the Spendulous cash. I almost got in trouble at work for saying they should burn it in a ash canister in the lobby of their the government building to keep things warmer and reduce the carbon footprint... fortunately I only got a wry smile, so I don't think I'm in too much trouble. Damn depressing if you are too wired into this stuff.
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the Constitution --- He that lives upon hope will die fasting. Benjamin Franklin -
Oakman wrote:
None of your quotes address whether socialism or capitalism will prevail, nor does the Constitution itself. Many of the quotes your found do, indeed, speak to the transfer of wealth by the government and on the whole, I agree with them. But you persist in confusing democracy and capitalism. Yet, to anyone whose mind is not totally blinded by ideology, it should be obvious that democracy, by definition, is simple a way-station on the road to socialism. Only the extremes of dictatorship and libertarianism can support capitalism for any length of time.
What the entire document makes clear, is that the founders, and the first several generations of Americans, at the very least, were opposed to the underlieing justification for socialism. There is no hint of any kind that they were opposed to the tenants of free market capitalism. Obviously, the constitution does not represent a ratification of capitalism, but it does represent an overt rejection of colletivism and central planning.
Oakman wrote:
Which has, since day one, gradually but inexorably drawn all power to itself. When Jefferson purchased the Louisianna Territory and the Feds decided how it would be parcelled out; when Lincoln refused to allow the South to leave the Union; when taxes were levied not on the States but on the people; when Senators were freed of their responsibility to the State governments; when the National Guard federalized the State Militias; When Roosevelt made owning gold a crime; when Eisenhower decided to build the Interstates; when Nixon repudiated Breton Woods - each and every one of these milestones increased the authority of the government. Most of them had nothing to do either with charity or socialism. They were simply and utterly about power.
I've never denied any of that. In fact, you left out the biggest ones - the IRS,Social Security, etc. My point is that it all remains inherently unconstitutioal given our founding principles. If change is something to believe in, why is a simple re-acknowledgment of those original principles such profoundly unacceptable change? We could wipe all of that away with a few appropriate judicial decisions. But, the only possible way that is going to happen, to run the experiment again with a knowledge of all the mistakes made, is to let everything collpase entirely and start over.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high
Stan Shannon wrote:
What the entire document makes clear, is that the founders, and the first several generations of Americans, at the very least, were opposed to the underlieing justification for socialism. There is no hint of any kind that they were opposed to the tenants of free market capitalism.
Nor any hint that they had, were or would outlaw socialism. Which was my point. The authors of the Constitution believed in the free and open exchange of ideas, believing that truth would always drive out falsehood. And they were right - at least as long as we stayed a small republic with a very limited but well-informed electorate.
Stan Shannon wrote:
In fact, you left out the biggest ones - the IRS,Social Security, etc.
Of course I didn't. Both of those spring directly from the amendment to the Constitition that says the feds have the power to tax individuals, not States. I would have thought you knew that.
Stan Shannon wrote:
to run the experiment again with a knowledge of all the mistakes made
If you go back and study the thinking of the founding fathers, you will discover that they were running the experiment over again and that they knew the traps that their republic could fall into. Jefferson and Adams died in 1826 thinking they'd created a bulwark against the problems encountered by the Greek and Roman republics and all their imitators since. But they did not. They could not and neither could you. A capitalistic republic (rule of law) leads to a mixed democracy (rule of the mob) leads to a socialistic oligarchy (rule of the few) leads to a full-fledged dictatorship (rule of the leader). The only alternative is libertarianism and that, unfortunately requires the entire population to take responsibility for themselves rather than begging the all-wise and all powerful state to assume it - which happens way back in the set up of the republic.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But, the only possible way that is going to happen, to run the experiment again with a knowledge of all the mistakes made, is to let everything collpase entirely and start over.
You talk like there's a choice in the matter. Wake up and smell the Armegeddon, Stan.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside w
-
Oakman wrote:
Stamp out ideas at all costs. Burn some books, institute the anti-fairness doctrine on the media. . .Otherwise, people might think for themselves!
What is the point of people thinking for themselves if they are denied the political power to actually implement their own principles as law in their own communities? You are the one who would deny them that, not me. In your world, the only people who get to do any thinking for themselves are the all wise and knowing Judges.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What is the point of people thinking for themselves if they are denied the political power to actually implement their own principles as law in their own communities?
And this is your justification for the imposition of Sharia Law?
Stan Shannon wrote:
In your world, the only people who get to do any thinking for themselves are the all wise and knowing Judges.
As usual you seem to confuse your straw-men with the real world. I have told you before and I repeat in case you actually catch on. I think that each person is responsible for his own actions and can be held accountable for those actions by every other person. In "my world" I accept the fact that most people have turned over their judgement to the State and so I try to live in a manner that does not bring down the full force of that state on my head. But ultimately, I obey the laws I approve of, ignore the ones I can, and break the ones that are onerous as quietly and unobtrusively as possible. You, it seems, have no problems with judges making all the live and death decisions about your life, you simply want them to enforce your particular form of Sharia - outlawing socialism for instance. Nothing demonstrates how little you have in common with Jefferson's or Madison's political philosophies than your rabid insistence on controlling the minds of everyone in your "Jeffersonian" community.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.