PDA

View Full Version : Context of the second ammendment



Sigfried
June 21st, 2016, 03:36 PM
I was working on a blog article for my personal blog (www.SigfriedTrent.com) on the issue of the gun control debate. I was writing about the second ammendment and its meaning when I had something of a revelation (at least a revelation to me). I thought I'd describe it here and see if folks think I'm on the mark or not.

The key here is to understantd that prior to the 14th ammendment, the rights described int he bill of rights were only prohibitions on the federal government. State's could in principle deny something like freedom of speach provided their own consittution or laws didn't protect it. In fact, until the 14th ammendment the Supreme court wasn't often all that busy since they could only hear cases about federal laws or actions of the federal govenrment.

This means that the 2nd ammendment, like the rest really only proveded that the federal government could not stop citizens from baring arms in the state militias. When you thik of it in this context, the part where it calls for the right to a well regulated militia makes a lot of sense. The second ammendment protects the rights of not only citiciens but the states themselves to provide for their defense. In colonial times there were numerous threats, indians, the brittish, the french, the spanish, slave revolts, insurection, bandits, other colonies, and of course the threat that the new federal government and its standing army could try and subjigat a state.

I next went to look at state consititutions and the language of their protections on the right to bare arms. All but two of the original colonies had such provisions. The wording in them varied however. Some did indeed call on the right to bare arms in personal self defense. Others only mention the need for a militia, specifically in defense of the state itself. Some of them also called out how dangerous a standing army was and that the militia was essential to prevent having a standing army. States that had this language don't mention self defense at all.

Then turning to the statements of contemporary politicians and the records of the arguments for the second ammendment, you can see that differnet parties had rather different justifications and interests. But in no way would they expect the 2nd ammendment to protect an individual right to arms except from federal action. A state could very well restrict arms if they didn't also have some protection in their constitution. (New York and New Jersy didn't and still don't have such protections at the state level). I think given the context and that those who supported it most strongly were from the states that ended up with state consittitions warning of the danger of standing armies and focusing their arms rights on maintianing a militia, that the most central thrust of the 2nd ammendment was to ensure states could maintain their own soverignty against a potentially over-riding federal power and armed forces.

I'm NOT going to go into what this means for the current gun debate. I just want to see what folks think of this line or reasoning and the conclusion as to what the 2nd ammendment did and was aimed at when it was penned.

MindTrap028
June 21st, 2016, 08:18 PM
I read a second amendment pro-con book, that said something along the same lines here. So definitely not out of left field.
Also, think that the reason the amendments were added, and not original to the constitution was partly because it was seen as common knowledge that the federal gov didn't have certain powers and authorities. It was after all a limited gov with specific enumerated powers. Further, there were some that thought that listing SOME rights, would imply that the document was creating those rights, or that only those rights were recognized. I think that line could be taken to support what you are saying here, though I am not versed enough on it at this time to further that line.

On the other side of the argument, I am not sure "shall not be infringed" is something specific to the federal gov. Can it only be a right on the federal level? So, women have a right to vote.. but only in federal elections. We have the right to free speech, but only from federal regulations and laws.
These are not simply the bill of limiting the federal gov's power(though it does). It is a bill enumerating important rights of the people all together. How would it go if there was some major restriction for the press at the state level only? Would we agree that the Const has no role in dealing with that action?

Also, another thought, that I'm not sure how applies, Is the civil war did change the relation of the states to the fed. Then the case of the 13th amendment (Amendment freeing the slaves) applied to the states, how much is the second amendment like it?

CowboyX
June 23rd, 2016, 02:03 AM
Then turning to the statements of contemporary politicians and the records of the arguments for the second ammendment, you can see that differnet parties had rather different justifications and interests. But in no way would they expect the 2nd ammendment to protect an individual right to arms except from federal action. A state could very well restrict arms if they didn't also have some protection in their constitution. (New York and New Jersy didn't and still don't have such protections at the state level). I think given the context and that those who supported it most strongly were from the states that ended up with state consittitions warning of the danger of standing armies and focusing their arms rights on maintianing a militia, that the most central thrust of the 2nd ammendment was to ensure states could maintain their own soverignty against a potentially over-riding federal power and armed forces.



Yes, and the origin of that fear was in the southern states where their militias were slave patrols. Patrick Henry had Madison change "country" to "state" along with other edits in the 2nd amendment because they feared that their slaves could be freed through service in a federal army...which later happened.

Sigfried
June 24th, 2016, 02:26 PM
On the other side of the argument, I am not sure "shall not be infringed" is something specific to the federal gov. Can it only be a right on the federal level? So, women have a right to vote.. but only in federal elections. We have the right to free speech, but only from federal regulations and laws.

Prior to the 14 ammendment in the bill of rights, the other rights enumerated did not prevent states from abrigating them, only the federal government. The 14th ammendment changed that and obligated every state to respect the rights outlined in the constitution. It was a huge change. I was shocked they never taught this in school, I learned it listening to an audio lecture on the history of the supreme court. I'd always assumed the bill of rights had always applied to everyone at all levels as it does now.


These are not simply the bill of limiting the federal gov's power(though it does). It is a bill enumerating important rights of the people all together. How would it go if there was some major restriction for the press at the state level only? Would we agree that the Const has no role in dealing with that action?

That was the way it was, states could and did limit free speach. THe 14th ammendment was a big deal. It is cited in more legal cases than any other part of the bill of rights. Most supreme court cases would have no grounds without it.


Also, another thought, that I'm not sure how applies, Is the civil war did change the relation of the states to the fed. Then the case of the 13th amendment (Amendment freeing the slaves) applied to the states, how much is the second amendment like it?

Without the 14th ammendment the 13th would not apply to states, that is why they were put in together. Even after it took a while for the court to come around to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

"Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments."

It is worth noting that most state constitutions also protect freedom of speech along with many other things, but legally the supreme court could not hear cases about state laws or actions denying freedom of speach or anything else in the bill of rights. They could only rule on cases about federal actions and laws.

Dionysus
June 24th, 2016, 03:54 PM
Oh for God's sake...

It's "amendment"

AMENDMENT

AMENDMENT

I LOVE 99% of your posts, but bruh, SPELLCHECK. Reading your brilliantly thought-out posts and always, always, always seeing weird spelling errors is like watching Luciano Pavarotti sing Ave Maria with his fly open.

MindTrap028
June 24th, 2016, 05:40 PM
Prior to the 14 ammendment in the bill of rights, the other rights enumerated did not prevent states from abrigating them, only the federal government.
Right, just not sure how you intended to "incorporate" that into the angle you were taking in the op.

Context in 1776 vs context of ... 1920's
or some other, how we should see it.

Sigfried
June 24th, 2016, 06:14 PM
I LOVE 99% of your posts, but bruh, SPELLCHECK. Reading your brilliantly thought-out posts and always, always, always seeing weird spelling errors is like watching Luciano Pavarotti sing Ave Maria with his fly open.

Sorry... I actually have this great online spell checker... but it doesn't work with old ODN very well and highlights things in the wrong place and generally makes it so I'd have to be really deliberate about checking my posts in another piece of software. I'm kind of lazy.... But I will try to do better! My appologies.

And why does it only have one M its a soft A it should have two Ms before the next vowel. English is so stupid!

---------- Post added at 06:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:12 PM ----------


Right, just not sure how you intended to "incorporate" that into the angle you were taking in the op.

Context in 1776 vs context of ... 1920's
or some other, how we should see it.

Ah yes, when I was writing my blog article it was about how the founding fathers saw it since that is a common point of contention. I left that out of my OP as I was kind of short handing. My mistake.

Ibelsd
July 18th, 2016, 09:47 AM
Prior to the 14 ammendment in the bill of rights, the other rights enumerated did not prevent states from abrigating them, only the federal government. The 14th ammendment changed that and obligated every state to respect the rights outlined in the constitution. It was a huge change. I was shocked they never taught this in school, I learned it listening to an audio lecture on the history of the supreme court. I'd always assumed the bill of rights had always applied to everyone at all levels as it does now.



That was the way it was, states could and did limit free speach. THe 14th ammendment was a big deal. It is cited in more legal cases than any other part of the bill of rights. Most supreme court cases would have no grounds without it.



Without the 14th ammendment the 13th would not apply to states, that is why they were put in together. Even after it took a while for the court to come around to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

"Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments."

It is worth noting that most state constitutions also protect freedom of speech along with many other things, but legally the supreme court could not hear cases about state laws or actions denying freedom of speach or anything else in the bill of rights. They could only rule on cases about federal actions and laws.

This is a hugely important point. The 14th amendment, over time, has whittled away at the concept of federalism. It is the reason many federalists believe the 14th amendment needs to be reworded. The issue was that the Congress wanted to ensure that blacks could not be denied citizenship by the states. However, the amendment was rushed and, it is generally understood that it was not worded to do what Congress intended. The amendment was meant to protect blacks, however, it has been expanded to include everything under the Sun. Even Roe v. Wade is based, in part, on the 14th amendment. Title IX is based on the 14th amendment. Anchor babies are protected by the 14th amendment. None of this was remotely intended. Frankly, it has become a big crock of poop. States have almost no recourse to govern themselves in any meaningful way because of this hastily worded amendment. It has been used as a back door by progressives to undermine American society and the idea of a federal republic since progressives prefer the concept of mob rule style democracy. I'd love to see it repealed and replaced by a more concise amendment.

MindTrap028
July 18th, 2016, 03:22 PM
I'd love to see it repealed and replaced by a more concise amendment.
I can get behind that, but politicians would never go for a clearly worded law that limits their power or agenda. Soooo, sucks to be us.

Sigfried
July 19th, 2016, 01:00 AM
This is a hugely important point. The 14th amendment, over time, has whittled away at the concept of federalism.

Of course I'm rather a fan. I think that no citizen in the US should be denied basic liberties and shoul always have equal protection under law. I don't give a fig for states rights compared to that. I do feel local governments are much better at handling local matters and that much regulation should be local, but basic liberties should be enshrined for all and should be abrogated by none.

Ibelsd
July 19th, 2016, 07:54 AM
Of course I'm rather a fan. I think that no citizen in the US should be denied basic liberties and shoul always have equal protection under law. I don't give a fig for states rights compared to that. I do feel local governments are much better at handling local matters and that much regulation should be local, but basic liberties should be enshrined for all and should be abrogated by none.

I think the issue is that the Constitution defines our agreement with the federal government, not our agreement with our state governments. You are basically arguing that the ends justify the means. I am arguing that the 14th amendment destroys are liberty by usurping the citizens' rights for local self-governance and makes a mockery of the concept of federalism.

I understand your concern about equal rights. It is legitimate. Certainly, the federal government should treat all citizens equally. How does this trickle down to the idea of independent states? You are choosing expediency over self-determination and individual liberty. I believe it is a dangerous game. It is a game which only has one possible ending, tyranny.

mican333
July 20th, 2016, 06:16 AM
I think the issue is that the Constitution defines our agreement with the federal government, not our agreement with our state governments. You are basically arguing that the ends justify the means. I am arguing that the 14th amendment destroys are liberty by usurping the citizens' rights for local self-governance and makes a mockery of the concept of federalism.

I understand your concern about equal rights. It is legitimate. Certainly, the federal government should treat all citizens equally. How does this trickle down to the idea of independent states? You are choosing expediency over self-determination and individual liberty. I believe it is a dangerous game. It is a game which only has one possible ending, tyranny.

But a state doesn't, and shouldn't, have the legal right to deprive individuals of their constitutional rights.

No state should have the legal option of, for example, creating a law barring its citizens from criticizing state government officials and the federal government should intervene if a state attempted to legally punish citizens for doing that.

MindTrap028
July 20th, 2016, 07:21 PM
But a state doesn't, and shouldn't, have the legal right to deprive individuals of their constitutional rights.

I was just reading about the civil war, and one of the things about slavery that the south was saying was basically. Look this wasn't a problem when we joined, and you guys(northern states) were fine with removing language complaining about slavery of England... now you have outgrown us and want to push us around and end our economy because of your desires.

Paraphrasing of course.

So. The push and pull between state and federal was and is legit. Of course we all side with the north for being anti slavery, but what if it were guns or speech or owning other property? Who should win?
where is the line and how do we protect it?

I guess, to the quote I am responding too, the other side of the coin is, should the fed be able to force the will of the several states on the few? ....

mican333
July 21st, 2016, 06:15 AM
So. The push and pull between state and federal was and is legit. Of course we all side with the north for being anti slavery, but what if it were guns or speech or owning other property? Who should win?

The constitution should win.

There might be grey lines concerning guns and free speech of when a law "crosses the line" but per my earlier example, we can agree that one has the constitutional right to criticize the governor of his state. So if a state passes a law forbidding such criticism and the federal government opposes that law, then the federal government, being on the side of constitutional rights, should clearly win.

Ibelsd
July 21st, 2016, 03:44 PM
But a state doesn't, and shouldn't, have the legal right to deprive individuals of their constitutional rights.

No state should have the legal option of, for example, creating a law barring its citizens from criticizing state government officials and the federal government should intervene if a state attempted to legally punish citizens for doing that.

Well, that is kind of debatable. What is the point of a state constitution if you are going to insist that the federal constitution is all that matters? Really, what is the point of having states at all? What if the federal constitution is all that matters and, via constitutional amendment, the right of free speech/right to protest the government is removed? Does that mean that the people automatically lose the right to petition their own state governments too?

futureboy
July 21st, 2016, 06:08 PM
What if the federal constitution is all that matters and, via constitutional amendment, the right of free speech/right to protest the government is removed? Does that mean that the people automatically lose the right to petition their own state governments too?This is kind of a slippery slope argument, as what you're essentially talking about is a constitutional amendment which would repeal the 1st amendment, which seems to be more than a bit of a stretch.

MindTrap028
July 21st, 2016, 07:29 PM
The constitution should win.
I would say why? I think IBELSD makes a good point, what is the point of a state const?

Should the local town answer to Washington in all things? I mean, we talk about the const, but in application it is the federal gov that is going to be given preference.
The local town tells a land owner he can dig a ditch, then the EPA fines him into oblivion for doing so. Who is really better able to govern that?

Does the "Fed const should always win" position say that it is the EPA? (I ask to check if you think my application is reasonable).

Sigfried
July 21st, 2016, 07:40 PM
I think the issue is that the Constitution defines our agreement with the federal government, not our agreement with our state governments. You are basically arguing that the ends justify the means. I am arguing that the 14th amendment destroys are liberty by usurping the citizens' rights for local self-governance and makes a mockery of the concept of federalism.

Well, if the ends are freedom of speech, life liberty and all that, ya, the means of focusing authority in the national government is well justified. If it was states that were protecting liberty and the federal government oppressing it I'd be all for the states, but it mostly hasn't worked out that way. Federalism as an ideal... died with the civil war in America. Those most interested in states rights wanted to use them to deny liberty to a great many people. They wanted the freedom to opress a large portion of their population. The liberty to take away another's liberty isn't really liberty at all, it's just oligarchy in disguise of democracy.

I'm for local jurisdiction, but more as a matter of pragmatism than idealism. I think there are certain baselines of liberty all Americans should have and no element in society should be permitted to take them away. That is the idealism behind the bill of rights and I stand with it 100%. The idea that it doesn't apply to state governments and thus to nearly all the american people would make it a joke, just pretty words with little to no meaning.

I know almost no one that consideres them selves first a citizen of a state, and only second a citizen of the united states. It used to be a common notion of course, there are a few that hold on to it, but most Americans don't think that way. I certainly don't. i'm a citizen of Washington state, but it's really just where I used to live and little more. I derive almost no sense of identity from it and I feel no special protection from my state. Most of its rules are matters of local practicality and have little to do with the fundamentals of my life. On the other hand, the bill of rights feels absolutely fundamental to my liberty and sence of ethics. Not every part of it, but much of it.


I understand your concern about equal rights. It is legitimate. Certainly, the federal government should treat all citizens equally. How does this trickle down to the idea of independent states? You are choosing expediency over self-determination and individual liberty. I believe it is a dangerous game. It is a game which only has one possible ending, tyranny.

I don't see any difference between tyrany of a state and tyrany of a larger govenrment. Tyrany is simply one person denying another of their liberty. It doesn't matter who is doing it other than they have authority and power to make it happen. If states are oppressing people and the federal goernment stands to stop them, by all means I'm on board. If the feds are oppressing people and the states are trying to stop it, i'm for that too but my first inclination is to stop the federal government by its own apparatus. It is after all run by representatives chosen at the state and local level.

mican333
July 22nd, 2016, 07:03 AM
Well, that is kind of debatable. What is the point of a state constitution if you are going to insist that the federal constitution is all that matters?

I didn't say the federal constitution is "all that matters".

And the US constitution says that plenty of issues are to be left to the states (10th amendment). So unless everything in the state constitution is addressed in the US constitution, there are reasons for a state constitution.


What if the federal constitution is all that matters and, via constitutional amendment, the right of free speech/right to protest the government is removed?

Then I would hold a different position on whether the constitution should be abided by.


Does that mean that the people automatically lose the right to petition their own state governments too?

No. The constitution does not give us our rights. As it is currently written, it protects our rights. So if the constitution were changed in a fashion where it infringed on our rights instead of protected them, I would no longer hold that it is a valid basis for US law.

To be clear, my support for the US Constitution is not based on an appeal to authority ("we should agree with the highest authority in all manners"). I agree with the content of the US constitution and, per our example, EVERYONE's right to criticize our leaders should be upheld. If the content of the US Constitution were different, then I would not necessarily argue that the constitution should overrule state law. And do you actually disagree with me? Do you think that states should be allowed to outlaw free speech without government interference? I would assume not. I assume that like me, you believe that the INDIVIDUAL has the right to criticize his/her leaders and there can be no legitimate law saying otherwise and there should be rules that apply to ALL governments at all level not allowing them to create and enforce such laws.




---------- Post added at 11:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 AM ----------


I would say why? I think IBELSD makes a good point, what is the point of a state const?

Should the local town answer to Washington in all things?

No. And I never said otherwise. I'm arguing that all governments should abide by the US Constitution, not whatever people in Washington say.


I mean, we talk about the const, but in application it is the federal gov that is going to be given preference.
The local town tells a land owner he can dig a ditch, then the EPA fines him into oblivion for doing so. Who is really better able to govern that?

This is off-topic to my argument. As far as I know the constitution says nothing about whether the town or the EPA should prevail in this hypothetical controversy.

MindTrap028
July 22nd, 2016, 02:24 PM
No. And I never said otherwise. I'm arguing that all governments should abide by the US Constitution, not whatever people in Washington say.
I appreciate your point here in that I agree you did not say "whatever Washington says" and you have limited your argument to answering to the const.

My point is that, that is one and the same as arguing for the powers of Washington. Because, as far as I know, the const is what gives the Fed it's powers.
So like my EPA example, that is a federal gov thing, and gets it's powers from the const (presumably). So my point continues, that in application, your argument would mean that the EPA should prevail.
As it is basically a const established (per it's powers being derived from the const) agency.

Thus it follows, that saying the const and thus the fed should be differed to in all maters which it speaks, is the same as saying the EPA should prevail over the state or local, all the time.


Questions should you disagree that it follows.

1) Are you disagreeing that agencies such as the EPA are const agencies, thus your opinion is that they are basically unlawfully set up and are illegitimate?
2) If they are not illegitimate, then you must agree that they are getting their powers from the const. So then in what way is my example not an instance of saying the const should win?

3) .. or is it possible that you are saying that the rights specifically named and protected in the const should always win, but not the powers given in the const?

mican333
July 22nd, 2016, 02:58 PM
My point is that, that is one and the same as arguing for the powers of Washington. Because, as far as I know, the const is what gives the Fed it's powers.
So like my EPA example, that is a federal gov thing, and gets it's powers from the const (presumably). So my point continues, that in application, your argument would mean that the EPA should prevail.

Show me where in the constitution it says that the federal government should prevail in all conflicts with state or local governments.

Establishing an entities power is not the same thing as saying that the entity should always prevail in a conflict.


or is it possible that you are saying that the rights specifically named and protected in the const should always win, but not the powers given in the const?

My argument is regarding the protected rights but I don't object to the constitution setting up government agencies. But that does not mean that I, or the constitution, holds that these institutions shall prevail in all controversies.

MindTrap028
July 23rd, 2016, 06:21 AM
Show me where in the constitution it says that the federal government should prevail in all conflicts with state or local governments.
I'm not certain how we can say the const should get preference over the states, and not say that the fed which is created by that document doesn't.


Establishing an entities power is not the same thing as saying that the entity should always prevail in a conflict.
Actually I think it does.
Like the supreme court always prevails over the lower courts. If it didn't then it wouldn't be the highest court.

The way you are laying out the power of the const, namely to trump the states, this appears to be the logical consequence.


My argument is regarding the protected rights but I don't object to the constitution setting up government agencies. But that does not mean that I, or the constitution, holds that these institutions shall prevail in all controversies.
Well, I really don't disagree with you necessarily I am still feeling out your reasoning.
I am sympathetic to your position, in that I do see a difference between powers and rights enumerated in the const.
but I don't necessarily see a consistent logic to separate the two when we give preferences or recognized order placing the const at the top of the food chain.

Are we going to say that parts of the const get to be the top... but not others? And how, and what effect does that have in application?


I hope I am being clear here.

mican333
July 23rd, 2016, 08:13 AM
I'm not certain how we can say the const should get preference over the states, and not say that the fed which is created by that document doesn't.

We can do that by acknowledging that the constitution and the federal government are not the same thing.

In fact, the constitution explicitly limits the federal governments authority over the states via the 10th amendment which says that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution and all remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people. So according to the constitution many state issues are off-limits to the federal government so in those cases, the constitution supports the states over the federal government.


Actually I think it does.
Like the supreme court always prevails over the lower courts. If it didn't then it wouldn't be the highest court.

That very limited and specific example does not rebut my position. So let me re-state it.

Establishing an entities power is not the same thing as saying that the entity should always prevail in a conflict.

I agree that if you establish a series of entities (like courts) and set one above all others, in that instance, one prevails over all others. But just establishing something does not automatically mean that it should prevail.

But regardless, I have supported that the powers established are limited and in may situations the federal government has no legitimate reason to interfere with, let alone prevail over, certain matters of state.





but I don't necessarily see a consistent logic to separate the two when we give preferences or recognized order placing the const at the top of the food chain.

Are we going to say that parts of the const get to be the top... but not others? And how, and what effect does that have in application?

This is basically off-topic to my argument. Here is the pertinent portion of the debate:

Mican: But a state doesn't, and shouldn't, have the legal right to deprive individuals of their constitutional rights.

MT: So. The push and pull between state and federal was and is legit. Of course we all side with the north for being anti slavery, but what if it were guns or speech or owning other property? Who should win?

Mican: The constitution should win.

The argument we were having was entirely in the context of the state infringing on an individual's rights. So I'm saying when it comes to determining whether the government should put limits on people's freedoms (owning guns, slavery, etc.), the constitution is what we need to follow in addressing the issue.

MindTrap028
July 23rd, 2016, 05:57 PM
We can do that by acknowledging that the constitution and the federal government are not the same thing.
Well, they are relevantly related. The const creates the federal gov and enumerates it's powers.
If we say the const gets preference over the states, then we are saying that the fed gets reference over the states.
I mean the supreme court is over state courts right? But the court isn't the const itself.. they are just created by the const.

So lets acknowledge that it's relevant.


In fact, the constitution explicitly limits the federal governments authority over the states via the 10th amendment which says that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution and all remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people. So according to the constitution many state issues are off-limits to the federal government so in those cases, the constitution supports the states over the federal government.
Right, that is the extent of the fed, it's boundaries.. the definition of what it is and what it is not.
Presumably the federal agencies are const and get their powers from the const yes?
what exactly is the gov doing right now that isn't given it by the const (or at least pretended by the fed to be)?


Establishing an entities power is not the same thing as saying that the entity should always prevail in a conflict.
I'm sorry that doesn't make any sense.
Exactly when does a lower court trump the supreme court?


I agree that if you establish a series of entities (like courts) and set one above all others, in that instance, one prevails over all others. But just establishing something does not automatically mean that it should prevail.
What? I don't understand this (per my last point). You seem to be arguing against the definition of enumerated powers.

Or are you making a moral argument and using the "should prevail" in that sense. Like if the supreme court ruled "X despicable thing", then it shouldn't prevail?



The argument we were having was entirely in the context of the state infringing on an individual's rights. So I'm saying when it comes to determining whether the government should put limits on people's freedoms (owning guns, slavery, etc.), the constitution is what we need to follow in addressing the issue.
Unless the const infringes on the rights of the individual... such as if it is amended to re-enslave minorities. ?

That is what I'm kinda getting from you..

mican333
July 24th, 2016, 07:32 AM
Well, they are relevantly related. The const creates the federal gov and enumerates it's powers.
If we say the const gets preference over the states, then we are saying that the fed gets reference over the states.
I mean the supreme court is over state courts right? But the court isn't the const itself.. they are just created by the const.

So lets acknowledge that it's relevant.

I didn't say it wasn't relevant. I'm saying that they aren't the same thing. Therefore just because the constitution overrules all other legal principles does not mean that the federal government overrules all other governmental entities.



Right, that is the extent of the fed, it's boundaries.. the definition of what it is and what it is not.
Presumably the federal agencies are const and get their powers from the const yes?
what exactly is the gov doing right now that isn't given it by the const (or at least pretended by the fed to be)?

First off, my argument was about deferring to the constitution in matters regarding individual rights and was not seeking to debate the issue of the powers that the constitution gives the federal government. But if you want to discuss that, I guess I'm game. But let's be clear that YOU are the one who is starting this particular discussion, not me. And therefore the argument that the constitution gives too much power to the federal government is YOUR argument and therefore you are the one who must support that position.

But you will have to make your points with arguments forwarding your position. Questions are not arguments.

Can you re-state that as an argument?




Unless the const infringes on the rights of the individual... such as if it is amended to re-enslave minorities.

Correct. I am not appealing to authority when I support the constitution (I don't argue that it should always win out because it's the highest authority). I support it because I agree with the constitution when it comes to protecting our individual rights and if the constitution infringed on our rights instead of protecting them, I would cease arguing that the constitution should be followed.

And I go into every debate assuming that anyone I'm addressing, including you, accepts the premise that it's a good thing that the constitution protects the rights of the individual.

And I've made it clear the my original argument was about the constitution protecting individual rights and was not about establishing the federal government and therefore your federal government argument does not address my argument regarding individual rights. So I do consider my argument that the constitution should win out when it comes to issue regarding individual rights to be unrebutted. I will address your federal government arguments but the issue does not effect my position regarding individual rights.

MindTrap028
July 24th, 2016, 10:00 AM
First off, my argument was about deferring to the constitution in matters regarding individual rights and was not seeking to debate the issue of the powers that the constitution gives the federal government
Just trying to get your argument.. not sure I have disagreed with it in my posts, points or questions yet.


And I've made it clear the my original argument was about the constitution protecting individual rights and was not about establishing the federal government and therefore your federal government argument does not address my argument regarding individual rights. So I do consider my argument that the constitution should win out when it comes to issue regarding individual rights to be unrebutted. I will address your federal government arguments but the issue does not effect my position regarding individual rights.

I am just trying to understand your argument and point and feel out it's extent and consequences.



Correct. I am not appealing to authority when I support the constitution (I don't argue that it should always win out because it's the highest authority). I support it because I agree with the constitution when it comes to protecting our individual rights and if the constitution infringed on our rights instead of protecting them, I would cease arguing that the constitution should be followed.
I think this is really the heart of the matter. I would agree with you on this point, in that our own personal morality's always (or should) win over the gov (for me it is because morality is objective and the gov can be wrong... not sure your reasoning, but I agree with the end of it and am not making an issue of it).

So we should always stand with what is morally right, regardless of the gov positions be it state, local, federal etc.

That said, in a discussion on states rights VS Federal powers, this position is not addressing that argument.
It's my opinion that there are certain instances where we must say "The fed should be followed even though it is wrong".
Such is the case for my position on Abortion. Such that while the gov is failing it its job to put murderers away and protect the innocent, I have to submit to it's rule to the point that I have hope in changing that system through the legal process.
Short of that I have no recourse but to take up arms, and do the job the gov refuses to do, namely protect the innocent.

Sigfried
July 24th, 2016, 10:04 AM
Constitution and Bill of Rights

It's worth noting that the constitution includes the bill of rights and there is a kind of functional separation of the two. The body of the constitution is about the structure and function of the United States government, that is the federated government of the states in the union. It is very much concenred with deliniating the powers of the bodies of the federal government vs the states powers. The presumption is that anything the federal government is not empowered to do is the jurisdiction of the states.

The bill of rights was kind of an add-on. There were many who championed it and insisted upon it. The ideology of natural rights and such that felt it must be part of the fabric of the government to ensure it did not turn into tyranny. It is a philosophical document outlining a sense of ethics and morals by which government should opperate.

So if you will, the body of the constitution is the body of the country. It is the form and function. The bill of rights is its heart and soul, the passion by which the body expresses its political will.

They are both important for very different reasons. Prior to the civil war, the federal government could not really apply the bill of rights universally, only in its own actions was it manifest. States had their own sets of rights in their own constitutions that governed their actions. After the civil war it was decided that all americans had to have the bill of rights and it came to be seen as one of the federal governments overriding mandates. The simple idea that if these are the soul of the nation, it should be true for all the nation.

mican333
July 24th, 2016, 11:34 AM
Just trying to get your argument.. not sure I have disagreed with it in my posts, points or questions yet.

I think I made it pretty clear originally, given what I was responding to. I'm saying in the matter of personal rights, the constitution should be followed.



I think this is really the heart of the matter. I would agree with you on this point, in that our own personal morality's always (or should) win over the gov (for me it is because morality is objective and the gov can be wrong... not sure your reasoning, but I agree with the end of it and am not making an issue of it).

I don't see how appealing to objective morality helps the issue. Yes, the government can be wrong but so can any individual person like yourself So if you disagree with the government on a moral issue, morality being objective does not make you more likely to be right than the government. Maybe the government's position better aligns with the objective morality than yours does.

Or to put another way, unless one can prove that a certain moral position is objectively correct (not just that objective morality exists but that certain positions are indeed objectively correct), appealing to objective morality doesn't help their moral argument.

You argument below seems to argue that the unborn should be granted all of the same rights as a born person and therefore the law against killing a person should apply to both the born and unborn. Can you show that this position of yours is objectively correct? Not just show that objective morality exists but that you are correctly forwarding objective morality with that position? How do you know that objective morality doesn't say otherwise?




That said, in a discussion on states rights VS Federal powers, this position is not addressing that argument.
It's my opinion that there are certain instances where we must say "The fed should be followed even though it is wrong".
Such is the case for my position on Abortion. Such that while the gov is failing it its job to put murderers away and protect the innocent, I have to submit to it's rule to the point that I have hope in changing that system through the legal process.
Short of that I have no recourse but to take up arms, and do the job the gov refuses to do, namely protect the innocent.

But taking up arms won't be particularly effective. You've already seen the results of violent attacks on abortion clinics and abortion doctors. Did it have any real effect on abortion in the US? Not really. If you followed through, you'd just end up in jail and condemned by most people, even pro-lifers don't generally support those who commit violence in the name of protecting the unborn (like someone who kills an abortion doctor).

But then I don't think this is really a constitutional issue. The pro-life side doesn't really argue against applying constitutional rights. The pro-life side wants constitutional rights to be given to the unborn.

As I've argued in the past, the constitution certainly gives women the right to have an abortion. But if the unborn were granted the same rights as a born person, then there would be a valid exception to the principle that allows the right to abortion - basically something that is a greater legal concern than the privacy of the mother.

MindTrap028
July 24th, 2016, 02:30 PM
I'm saying in the matter of personal rights, the constitution should be followed.
I am concerned with the "why" it should be followed.
Your position is that it should be followed because you happen to agree with it. I was under some impression that it was a authority line thing.

I think I got it now.


I don't see how appealing to objective morality helps the issue.
It may, it may not. I agree with your end but not how you get there. I am content to work on where we agree. I was just making note that we have very different paths of getting there.


Yes, the government can be wrong but so can any individual person like yourself So if you disagree with the government on a moral issue, morality being objective does not make you more likely to be right than the government. Maybe the government's position better aligns with the objective morality than yours does.
Being correct is of course always helpful, and in the case of objective morality one can be correct and the other wrong.
Absent objective truth, neither can be said to be right or wrong, only make note that they disagree.


Or to put another way, unless one can prove that a certain moral position is objectively correct (not just that objective morality exists but that certain positions are indeed objectively correct), appealing to objective morality doesn't help their moral argument.

It comes down to ones internally consistent position in being able to say not only "I disagree" but "you are wrong".
Those are two very different statements.

In the case of abortion, I am not simply saying that I disagree with the current gov position, but that the gov is wrong on it's current position.
That simply isn't something a relativist can say with any internal consistency.

Not really here or there IMO, because the point I bring up is the recourse left to one when faced with an institutional moral wrong.


You argument below seems to argue that the unborn should be granted all of the same rights as a born person and therefore the law against killing a person should apply to both the born and unborn. Can you show that this position of yours is objectively correct? Not just show that objective morality exists but that you are correctly forwarding objective morality with that position? How do you know that objective morality doesn't say otherwise?
I was just giving an example, that certainly isn't the line I am interested in debating here as it is off topic IMO.


But taking up arms won't be particularly effective. You've already seen the results of violent attacks on abortion clinics and abortion doctors. Did it have any real effect on abortion in the US? Not really. If you followed through, you'd just end up in jail and condemned by most people, even pro-lifers don't generally support those who commit violence in the name of protecting the unborn (like someone who kills an abortion doctor).
Your idea of taking up arms, and my idea is very different. How do you know it won't be effective? It worked for the north didn't it? It worked in the revolution didn't it?
Besides it working is really not what I'm forwarding, it could be that it doesn't. .. that doesn't mean there is some other recourse.

I was just speaking to the recourse left to me. Do you disagree and think there is some other recourse?
If so, what is it?

Again, when faced with the inability to effect a moral wrong implemented by the state through the legal process.

I am all ears, probably would have been really helpful to those facing the civil war as well.


As I've argued in the past, the constitution certainly gives women the right to have an abortion. But if the unborn were granted the same rights as a born person, then there would be a valid exception to the principle that allows the right to abortion - basically something that is a greater legal concern than the privacy of the mother.
To the extent that you are correct, the state has instituted a moral wrong. .. and my recourse (other than legal) .... Is?

mican333
July 24th, 2016, 03:31 PM
I am concerned with the "why" it should be followed.
Your position is that it should be followed because you happen to agree with it. I was under some impression that it was a authority line thing.

Correct. And I was likewise assuming that it's an accepted premise that the Bill of Rights should be followed. You may challenge that if you want but I will assume that you accept it unless you state otherwise.



Being correct is of course always helpful, and in the case of objective morality one can be correct and the other wrong.
Absent objective truth, neither can be said to be right or wrong, only make note that they disagree.

It's no different with objective truth either (unless someone is capable of proving their moral position is objectively true). If two people both agree that objective truth exists and yet disagree on what moral positions are objectively correct, they will likewise have to note that they disagree just like two subjectivist will have to note this (unless one of them can prove that their position is indeed objectively correct).



It comes down to ones internally consistent position in being able to say not only "I disagree" but "you are wrong".
Those are two very different statements.

In the case of abortion, I am not simply saying that I disagree with the current gov position, but that the gov is wrong on it's current position.
That simply isn't something a relativist can say with any internal consistency.

Yes he can. "You are wrong" is not inherently an objective statement. If one holds the opinion that another is wrong, he can still say "you are wrong". People say that all of time in debating things that are clearly subjective ("Elton John is terrible!" "You are wrong. He's great!")

Nor has it been supported that the objective "you are wrong" is superior to the subjective "you are wrong". The objective is superior ONLY is there is indeed an objective source of morality (and it's not been proven or even supported that it is) and that the arguer is correctly forwarding the objective source's moral viewpoint (the arguer could be incorrect on what the moral source actually forwards).

IF the objective arguer is incorrect on either of those two things, then it can be argued that the subjective arguer is arguing from a superior source since his position is coming from something that actually exists (himself) while the objective arguer's position is either coming from something entirely imaginary or is falsely stating that something's belief.

So in short, it cannot really be said that the objective source is inherently superior to the subjective source until one can support that the objective source actually exists.




Your idea of taking up arms, and my idea is very different. How do you know it won't be effective? It worked for the north didn't it? It
worked in the revolution didn't it?

Large-scale armed insurrections can be effective, of course. But you were saying what YOU would do and did not seem to be referring to a bunch of other people joining you. So if YOU decided to take up arms, I can go by the results of what individual violent actions against abortion has resulted in the US - which is effectively nothing.

In fact, it's clear that legal methods have had a greater impact against abortion than illegal actions. Some states have effectively hampered access to abortion (which almost certainly has decreased the number of abortions that took place than if there were greater access) by putting severe restrictions on abortion clinics ability to operate. That did a lot more to hamper abortion than someone shooting an abortion doctor.



I was just speaking to the recourse left to me. Do you disagree and think there is some other recourse?
If so, what is it?

Join anti-abortion protests. Donate to pro-life groups. Contact your legislators and try to influence them to restrict abortion.

I'm not saying that any of these will lead to any large-scale changes but they are certainly no less effective than one person taking up arms.

The notion of a large-scale army effectively taking violent action and making a real difference is basically fantasy as far as I can tell. People in the US just aren't going to do that in any significant numbers.




To the extent that you are correct, the state has instituted a moral wrong. .. and my recourse (other than legal) .... Is?

I don't advocate that you go outside of legal methods to effect change.

Not just because I think it's better, all things considered, to refrain from illegal activity but because I don't think any illegal action you can take to oppose abortion will be more effective than the legal options that you can take to oppose abortion.

That's not to say that it's always wrong to take illegal action to oppose a law that one feels is morally wrong. A very good example is Rosa Parks refusing to sit in the back of the bus. In THAT instance, she opposed a law that is morally wrong (I'm sure we agree on that) and her actions were very effective in changing that law.

And it's not up to me to give you a similar method to fight abortion. For one, I don't agree with your position morally (so I don't have any incentive to help you find a way to succeed) nor do I see how it helps my position in this debate to give you method. So if you can find a good method, go for it. But it's not really my concern.

MindTrap028
July 24th, 2016, 03:47 PM
It's no different with objective truth either (unless someone is capable of proving their moral position is objectively true). If two people both agree that objective truth exists and yet disagree on what moral positions are objective correct, they will likewise have to note that they disagree (unless one of them can prove that they are corr.

Your speaking to the limit of a person, not the limits of their position.
Two people who agree on objective truth, have reason to hear the other position, because they may have access to something the other doesn't.
This is not the case with one who is simply making note of their current mental state.

So there is a difference.


Yes he can. "You are wrong" is not inherently an objective statement. If one holds the opinion that another is wrong, he can still say "you are wrong".
Semantics game that misses the point.
You can say whatever you want that doesn't carry the meaning you intend. That is fine, but not what I was pointing out.


Nor has it been supported that the objective "you are wrong" is superior to the subjective "you are wrong".
The nature of the claim is different.
To say you are objectively wrong, is different then to say I disagree. Or to use the phrase "you are wrong" as a semantically reference to your personal state of mind as opposed to some objective truth.

One can be dismissed out of hand with no consequence as the statement is not of consequence.

Take for example..
"Your in quicksand and about to die!".
VS
"I imagine you in quicksand".

The first is about an objective truth. The second is about a state of mind.
The former is an inherently more significant claim.


It is funny that you treat your admitted imaginations are real though. :)



Large-scale armed insurrections can be effective, of course. But you were saying what YOU would do and did not seem to be referring to a bunch of other people. So if YOU decided to take up arms, I can go by the results of what individual violent actions against abortion has resulted in the US.

If you managed to somehow organize a very large army of armed people to take up arms and so on, then it would be a different situation. But holding to reality as it currently is, that's not going to happen. You can certainly choose your own actions but the notion that you will somehow get a bunch of other people to join you does not seem realistic.
Not really interested.


Join anti-abortion protests. Donate to pro-life groups. Contact your legislators and try to influence them to restrict abortion.

That sounds like the legal recourse. .. yes?


And it's not up to me to give you a similar method to fight abortion. For one, I don't agree with your position morally (so I don't have any incentive to help you find a way to succeed) nor do I see how it helps my position in this debate to give you method. So if you can find a good method, go for it. But it's not really my concern.
Your hung up on effectiveness, I was just making note that when the legal recourse is exhausted, all that is left is to take up arms.
Of course the success or failure would be up for debate, and a debate I'm not interested in.

mican333
July 24th, 2016, 04:45 PM
Your speaking to the limit of a person, not the limits of their position.
Two people who agree on objective truth, have reason to hear the other position, because they may have access to something the other doesn't.
This is not the case with one who is simply making note of their current mental state.

Someone who believes that his position is objectively true is likewise only becoming aware of the other person's mental state. If the other person agrees, then it is known that they hold a similar position. If the other person disagrees, then it is known that they have incorrect information.

If one knows the truth, there is absolutely no reason to listen to anyone else regarding that issue beyond learning if the other person agrees or not. It does not enlighten you to be told something that you already know is true or to be told something that you already know is false. All you learn is what the other person knows or doesn't know.



Semantics game that misses the point.
You can say whatever you want that doesn't carry the meaning you intend. That is fine, but not what I was pointing out.

Your point seems to be that only people who believe in objective truths can justify saying "you are wrong" (if not, then I don't understand what your point is) and this is incorrect. Again, "you are wrong" is not an inherently objective statement so it can be said subjectively or objectively (and usually the context of the discussion will reveal which it is or perhaps at times it won't be clear which is meant).




The nature of the claim is different.
To say you are objectively wrong, is different then to say I disagree. Or to use the phrase "you are wrong" as a semantically reference to your personal state of mind as opposed to some objective truth.

One can be dismissed out of hand with no consequence as the statement is not of consequence.

Assuming it's a moral debate that is being had, they can BOTH be dismissed out of hand if one disagrees with them.



Take for example..
"Your in quicksand and about to die!".
VS
"I imagine you in quicksand".

The first is about an objective truth. The second is about a state of mind.
The former is an inherently more significant claim.

That's only true if that objective statement is actually true (the person really is in quicksand). If the person is not in quicksand, then the second statement is better since it's true (the speaker is telling the truth about imagining quicksand) while the first one is false (he lied or was mistaken about there being quicksand).

And I'm not just being cute here. My point is that objective statements are only superior to subjective statements if they are true. If they are not true, then the subjective statement is superior. If it is not known if they are true or not, then we don't know which is superior.

So when it comes to moral arguments, those who hold the objective position need to prove that their positions are objectively true before it's reasonable to consider it superior to those who admit they are voicing opinion. If the objective claim is false, then the subjective claim is superior since it's not a false claim. If it's not known if the objective claim is true, then it's also not known which claim is superior. So until you can show that any particular objective moral claim is objectively true, there is no reason to consider it superior to a subjective moral claim.





Your hung up on effectiveness, I was just making note that when the legal recourse is exhausted, all that is left is to take up arms.

You said you were taking up arms to protect the unborn. Given that, you are only justified in CHOOSING to take up arms if you think you might actually succeed in protecting the unborn on some level. If you believe you don't have a chance of making any real change, then I see no good reason to take up arms. You are better off doing nothing at all then committing violence for no good reason.

So effectiveness is very, very important to whether one should choose to take up arms in making a difference.

I would think that an objective moral source would be against violence for no good reason.

MindTrap028
July 25th, 2016, 12:03 PM
That's only true if that objective statement is actually true (the person really is in quicksand). If the person is not in quicksand, then the second statement is better since it's true (the speaker is telling the truth about imagining quicksand) while the first one is false (he lied or was mistaken about there being quicksand).
Yes, it must be actually true.

However the statement is about something that is or is not actually true, in a relevant way.
Your state of mind can be true or false, but it is not about anything relevant and can be, and should be dismissed.

However the other statement can only reasonably be dismissed if it is false, and thus it's truth or falsehood is worth investigating and hearing out.


---
For example, if you ask "Should I kill this" (where "this" is undefined or unknown by you)
and I say,

If you do it is murder (her the law is the objective moral law).

Vs

If you do I will imagine you as a murderer.

The former is a reference to an objective truth, and I could be wrong. But if you don't wish to be a murder in an absolute and real sense, then you ought to hear me out, or have access to the actual truth.
In the case of the later, First off if I don't care what you think then even if it is true I have no reason to hear you out. Second, the answer is not one about a truth that carries some inherent effect, rather it becomes about personal approval.

Another could come and say, he may imagine you as a murder, but I will imagine you as a coward. Then following either sway is equally moral, or following neither. Thus it is not relevant to morality at all, and is not moral answer.. or an answer to a question on morality.


You said you were taking up arms to protect the unborn. Given that, you are only justified in CHOOSING to take up arms if you think you might actually succeed in protecting the unborn on some level. If you believe you don't have a chance of making any real change, then I see no good reason to take up arms. You are better off doing nothing at all then committing violence for no good reason.

So effectiveness is very, very important to whether one should choose to take up arms in making a difference.

I would think that an objective moral source would be against violence for no good reason.
I suppose you are assuming that the only "good reason" is one that ends in ultimate success.
I disagree :)

mican333
July 25th, 2016, 01:45 PM
Yes, it must be actually true.

However the statement is about something that is or is not actually true, in a relevant way.
Your state of mind can be true or false, but it is not about anything relevant and can be, and should be dismissed.

That's not necessarily true. Maybe I care about someone's state of mind and am interested in hearing about their imaginings. So let's say that MAYBE their subjective thoughts should be dismissed. On the other hand, if one makes a factual claim ("there is quicksand") that is clearly incorrect, that statement should be dismissed.

So again, whether the objective claim is superior or inferior to the subjective claim is entirely dependent on whether it's true or false. If it's true, it's better than a subjective claim. If it's false, it's inferior to a subjective claim.


For example, if you ask "Should I kill this" (where "this" is undefined or unknown by you)
and I say,

If you do it is murder (her the law is the objective moral law).

Vs

If you do I will imagine you as a murderer.

The former is a reference to an objective truth, and I could be wrong. But if you don't wish to be a murder in an absolute and real sense, then you ought to hear me out, or have access to the actual truth.
In the case of the later, First off if I don't care what you think then even if it is true I have no reason to hear you out. Second, the answer is not one about a truth that carries some inherent effect, rather it becomes about personal approval.

But if I don't care what you think, I would dismiss BOTH claims.

I'm already aware of the concept of murder being objectively wrong so the only new information I get from you telling me you think murder is objectively wrong is that you believe that it's objectively wrong. Assuming I don't care what your subjective beliefs about murder are, I also won't care if you think it's objectively wrong.

Whether your claim is based on subjectivity or objectivity, all you are telling me is what your think (unless you can provide support that your beliefs are true).


I suppose you are assuming that the only "good reason" is one that ends in ultimate success.
I disagree :)

No, I hold that a sincere attempt to do the right thing is also a good reason, even if the attempt fails.

So if you make a sincere attempt to save the unborn, then it could be argued that you are doing a good thing and the end justifies the violent means. But a sincere attempt means that you believe that you have a reasonable chance at succeeding.

For example, if you decide to take up arms and shoot the first mailman you encounter, it really cannot be argued that you actually committed violence to protect the unborn for there is no rational way that killing a mailman will accomplish your stated goal. So whatever violent action you take, you do have to show that you sincerely believed that doing so would protect the unborn, even if your plan does not work out.

So a sincere intent to succeed is necessary which means that you must show that your plans to take up arms can reasonably lead to success before it could be considered morally correct. And that means that one must figure out the likelihood of success BEFORE they take up arms. The odds of success is very relevant to whether taking up arms is a morally correct action.

Ibelsd
July 25th, 2016, 04:11 PM
Well, if the ends are freedom of speech, life liberty and all that, ya, the means of focusing authority in the national government is well justified. If it was states that were protecting liberty and the federal government oppressing it I'd be all for the states, but it mostly hasn't worked out that way. Federalism as an ideal... died with the civil war in America. Those most interested in states rights wanted to use them to deny liberty to a great many people. They wanted the freedom to opress a large portion of their population. The liberty to take away another's liberty isn't really liberty at all, it's just oligarchy in disguise of democracy.

I'm for local jurisdiction, but more as a matter of pragmatism than idealism. I think there are certain baselines of liberty all Americans should have and no element in society should be permitted to take them away. That is the idealism behind the bill of rights and I stand with it 100%. The idea that it doesn't apply to state governments and thus to nearly all the american people would make it a joke, just pretty words with little to no meaning.

I know almost no one that consideres them selves first a citizen of a state, and only second a citizen of the united states. It used to be a common notion of course, there are a few that hold on to it, but most Americans don't think that way. I certainly don't. i'm a citizen of Washington state, but it's really just where I used to live and little more. I derive almost no sense of identity from it and I feel no special protection from my state. Most of its rules are matters of local practicality and have little to do with the fundamentals of my life. On the other hand, the bill of rights feels absolutely fundamental to my liberty and sence of ethics. Not every part of it, but much of it.



I don't see any difference between tyrany of a state and tyrany of a larger govenrment. Tyrany is simply one person denying another of their liberty. It doesn't matter who is doing it other than they have authority and power to make it happen. If states are oppressing people and the federal goernment stands to stop them, by all means I'm on board. If the feds are oppressing people and the states are trying to stop it, i'm for that too but my first inclination is to stop the federal government by its own apparatus. It is after all run by representatives chosen at the state and local level.

At least you are honest in that you simply do not believe in the efficacy of federalism. And you are free to that belief/opinion. However, since your conclusion is based on the premise that federalism is dead, please tell me the Constitutional amendment or Declaration that federalism has been replaced by some other form of government.

The answer to your question will ultimately uncover your argument's major flaw. If we are to suppose that federalism died at the end of the civil war, then it must have been replaced by something. I think we can both agree that something isn't anarchy. Rather, I think you will suppose that federalism has been replaced by a strong central government which trumps all states rights where the two may conflict. Perhaps the Hamiltonians win in the end, eh?

However, where I find your line of reasoning most spurious is in your reasoning which presupposes that a Jeffersonian type democracy, Republicanism, is based on abuse and racism. However, wasn't the civil war created by the strength of those states who were free to disavow themselves from slavery? Could such a stand possibly exist today where a minority of states follow their own moral paths even though they are unpopular? Are you claiming that a strong central government has never been used to oppress its citizens? Hasn't history shown us that strong central governments lead to much greater abuses of human rights than any other system? You have cherry-picked a few events from American history and turned them into a misguided conclusion.

No. The ends do not justify the means. It seems some Americans, in their desire to right all perceived wrongs with a wave of their magic federal brush, have made a deal with the devil, ignoring how these things have generally led to war and catastrophe. If you see no difference in an overbearing state government, in which people can easily protest by moving across state lines and where the state has no access to an actual military apparatus and a strong central government with tools like the FBI, CIA, and a well-trained military, then you are beyond reason. Of course there is a difference. It is the difference between my acting like a dictator to the folks in my city and my town's mayor with the support of money and police doing the same. There is a huge difference in who the tyrant is when determining the damage that can be done.

Sigfried
July 27th, 2016, 10:06 PM
At least you are honest in that you simply do not believe in the efficacy of federalism. And you are free to that belief/opinion. However, since your conclusion is based on the premise that federalism is dead, please tell me the Constitutional amendment or Declaration that federalism has been replaced by some other form of government.

Well, not much reason to be dishonest on ODN. The 14th amendment sir, that is what we are discussing after all. It effectively trumped State power with regard to any law that would abridge the freedoms delineated in the bill of rights. It was created specifically to stop the south from disenfranchising blacks, but it had far reachging effects with the principle of equal protection.

Of course I figured you would understand that when I say federalism is dead, I don't mean every aspect of state power is destroyed, only that the notion of state power held prior to the civil war has been so drasticly reduced it is hard to recognize it as the same principle. Federal power trumps state power nearly anywhere they come into conflict. That was not so much the case prior to the civil war.


The answer to your question will ultimately uncover your argument's major flaw. If we are to suppose that federalism died at the end of the civil war, then it must have been replaced by something. I think we can both agree that something isn't anarchy. Rather, I think you will suppose that federalism has been replaced by a strong central government which trumps all states rights where the two may conflict. Perhaps the Hamiltonians win in the end, eh?

Eye, that's it precisely. We still have State jurisdiction and power, it just wanes agaisnt nearly any Federal challenge. The Hamiltonians very much won the argument from a pragmatic point of view. Their veiw of how things should be pretty much became the way things are.


However, where I find your line of reasoning most spurious is in your reasoning which presupposes that a Jeffersonian type democracy, Republicanism, is based on abuse and racism.

When did I say that? I assure you that is not my argument.


However, wasn't the civil war created by the strength of those states who were free to disavow themselves from slavery? Could such a stand possibly exist today where a minority of states follow their own moral paths even though they are unpopular?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. The civil war was created due to tension between slave holding states and territories, and non-slave holding states and territories. Both sides feared the other would gain enough control to force slavery into free states, or force slavery states into some day outlawing slavery. The slave holding states decided to declare indipendence rather than loose control at the federal level. The north wanted re-integration, the south to maintain indipendence and tensions escilated into war.

Once the war was won by the north they exacted a price from the south in forcing emancipation and citizenship for the freed slaves thus destroying the thing they succeded to protect.


Are you claiming that a strong central government has never been used to oppress its citizens?

No.


Hasn't history shown us that strong central governments lead to much greater abuses of human rights than any other system?

No, I don't think so. I think history shows that the more power one has, the more potential there is for abuse of such power. It doesn't show that all power leads to abuse or that abuse always requires especially strong central power. Any time one group of people think they are better than another and have the power to demonstrate that, there is a good opportunity for horror. But decentralized governments, like the US, certainly did their share of dirty deeds. And there are many governments and periods of our own government where we were suprisingly peaceful despite our strong central power and overwhelming force. Same goes for various other governments with strong central power.

But loose affiliations, say like the Vikings who were anything but centralized, did some pretty amazingly evil things simply because they could. No central power was needed, just a willingness to treat other people like animals to be buthered and the ability to do so.


You have cherry-picked a few events from American history and turned them into a misguided conclusion.

No. One of americas greatest evils was slavery. And when it comes to that issue, which is central to some of our most significant historical moments, states rights was an argument used to protect slavery. These days it's also been used to protect religious bigotry, and bigotry against homosexuals, and bigotry against women. I can't think of recent incidents where the states were saying "hey we really want to give these folks more respect and freedom" and the feds said "Nope, you can't do that you must remain opressive!" THe closest I can think of is Marijuana and the feds have mostly decided just to let the states do that if they like rather than forcing them to upend their legalization laws.


No. The ends do not justify the means.

That all depends on the means and the ends doesn't it?


It seems some Americans, in their desire to right all perceived wrongs with a wave of their magic federal brush, have made a deal with the devil, ignoring how these things have generally led to war and catastrophe.

I don't see a lot of war and catastrophe. We had the civil war, and while it was horrendous, it meant in perpituity a whole class of human beings would be free. We pretty much faught the war of indipendence with the same kind of ideal. You make short term sacrifices for the ongoing good of freedom. I just don't see any massive abuses of federal power that led to any catastrophy in the US. Bad decisions, sure. But back in the days of strong states, we also made stupid national mistakes. (See war of 1812 for an example)


If you see no difference in an overbearing state government, in which people can easily protest by moving across state lines and where the state has no access to an actual military apparatus and a strong central government with tools like the FBI, CIA, and a well-trained military, then you are beyond reason.

Of course I see the difference. But what I don't see is that apparatus often being used to opress citizens while states, despite their limited resources have a long history of agregous abuses. Back in slavery days, you coldn't just corss a state line to escape opression. THe states forced the feds to hunt down fugitives in free states and return them to slavery. Just because states can have the rights to opress their citizens, doesn't mean they can't also collectively use the federal power for ill as well.

Provided the federal government doesn't use its power in abuse of the people which it is supposed to represent, then there isn't really a problem and our system is set up such that should that happen there are a great many checks and balances agaisnt it. This is not a dictatorship after all. When the federal government has moved agaisnt states it has consistently been to give liberty to its citizens who were being attacked, not to deny liberty. It has a very good track record of doing what it is supposed to do.

You fear what is possible, but if we feared every possibility we would be paralyzed with inactivity. Every time you drive a car you could die. We take that risk so we can get around faster. Every government could become a tyrant, but we take that risk so we can protect ourselves from the every day tyrany of one anothers selfish whims and ambitions.

Ibelsd
July 28th, 2016, 08:13 AM
I get it. Having a strong central government is expedient. People can impose their moral views on others. We can call other people bigots and force them to behave like us and express their values like us. Then, we can sit and complain about how polarized we are as a nation. We can rationalize limits to religious freedom because, clearly, having a moral view on any behavior which makes some group feel marginalized must be legislated against. Of course, since the federal government reigns supreme, we can cut the winners and losers in half and once some group loses federal power, they get to lose for a four to eight year cycle which, of course, polarizes people even more. Then, when laws like the Patriot Act are passed, we complain that the federal government has overreached their powers. However, since we have effectively ended the idea of sovereign states, there is nothing that can be done about it. So, people will go on defending the 14th amendment because, hey, the ends justify the means and states rights is just code for bigotry. Yes, states abused their power, but some group of states abusing their power is much less worrisome than a federal government which usurps all power and concentrates it in the hands of a few.

You admit that the Hamiltonians have pretty much won the day. So, it is surprising that you deny that the Jeffersonian vision is dead. We have checks and balances, not because the founders feared strong state governments, but because they feared a strong central government (i.e. a king). However, the progressive mindset, as you've made clear, is that the ends justify the means. So, if it takes an iron fisted federal government to make people share your moral values, then so be it. You do not even acknowledge that you are advocating tyranny because you see the ends as benevolent.

The 14th amendment, poorly worded, has practically destroyed this nation. Government, in general, picks winners and losers in society. One of the strengths of our nation, and a reason why it has been able to stand as one, is because the founders recognized that when one group is always a loser, then they are more likely to rebel. Today, whichever party holds the Congress and Executive branches, because of the 14th amendment, gets to decide winners and losers for the entire nation, no longer limited by the concept of states rights. As such, we get four and eight year cycles where nearly half the people are consistent losers. This probably does not bother you. The ends justify the means and if they are losers due to their own ignorant views, then you couldn't care less. However, this also creates constant discord and leads to violence and rebellion. Your means are not truly creating solutions even if they make you feel superior and morally smug.

You use the Vikings as an odd example. More relevant in the modern age is how governments like the Nazis, the Viet-Cong, the Communists, and the Khmer Rouge consolidated power to oppress the people. It should be noted that the Vikings had a fairly egalitarian society due. They didn't abuse their own people, and power, until the 19th century was not consolidated with a single king.

It is funny that you accuse me of being driven by irrational fear. Your entire argument is that states rights led to the atrocity that is slavery. However, slavery was ended nearly 150 years ago and its end predated the 14th amendment. You seem to fear that absent the 14th amendment and a return to Jeffersonian democracy would, somehow, lead to its reinstatement. That, my friend, is the height of irrational fear.

Sigfried
July 28th, 2016, 12:03 PM
I get it. Having a strong central government is expedient. People can impose their moral views on others.

If that moral view is liberty, yes absolutely. I believe strongly in monopoly of power in order to ensure a power vacuum. If the federal government didn't ensure a freedom of speech, then many states may well exclude that freedom. The freedom to deny other people freedom is not freedom. Opression used to remove opression is not real opression. ODN is a decent example. We limit the kinds of things people can do with the intent of allowing most people to have civil discussions. Is it tyrany to kick out spammers and trolls? Or is it a way to allow mostly decent people to discuss important topics?

Ther is a line of thinking that any and all authority is bad. I don't ascribe to that. I think authority used for ill is bad. If authority is unchecked then there is no means for stopping it from being bad. However, provided you have the means to keep authority in check, then it is not bad in and of itself. It can in fact be used to stop bad people from doing bad things. Wihtout any authority bad people can act unchecked by any limitations. That is true Tyrany.


We can call other people bigots and force them to behave like us and express their values like us.

That is not the intent, or at least not mine. My intent is to keep bigots from opressing and mistreating those who are the target of their biggotry. They can think what they like and express what they like, but they can't act on those impulses that call on them to harrass the target of their narrow minded hatred. And of couse since they can speak their crappy thoughts, I can counter them with mine and they will have to listen as I tell them what idiots they are but I won't use force to silence them.


Then, we can sit and complain about how polarized we are as a nation. We can rationalize limits to religious freedom because, clearly, having a moral view on any behavior which makes some group feel marginalized must be legislated against.

Legally I don't care how people feel. Socialy, well ya, I will marginalize the hell out of folks that are assholes to others. It's not like by accepting their bigoted views I am going to see any greater unity, their whole viewpoint is one of seperation and marginalization. But turning on them I create no greater disharmony than they already proposed themselves. All I am doing is standing with the people they are attacking, making it so instead of them corraling off and attacking a small group, they are the small group corraling themselves off with their hateful views while the rest of us stand in solidarity treating eachother as human beings of equal respect.


Then, when laws like the Patriot Act are passed, we complain that the federal government has overreached their powers. However, since we have effectively ended the idea of sovereign states, there is nothing that can be done about it.

What exactly would have pre civil war states done to stop the patriot act? States have never really had the ability to stop federal actions unless the jurisdiction crossed into the state.


Yes, states abused their power, but some group of states abusing their power is much less worrisome than a federal government which usurps all power and concentrates it in the hands of a few.

But it is not the hands of a few, it is the hands of all. Every state sends representatives that make up the bulk of the poewer of the federal government.


You admit that the Hamiltonians have pretty much won the day. So, it is surprising that you deny that the Jeffersonian vision is dead. We have checks and balances, not because the founders feared strong state governments, but because they feared a strong central government (i.e. a king). However, the progressive mindset, as you've made clear, is that the ends justify the means. So, if it takes an iron fisted federal government to make people share your moral values, then so be it. You do not even acknowledge that you are advocating tyranny because you see the ends as benevolent.

I think you utterly misunderstand the founding fathers. They had no special fear of central government, they had a fear of government that did not serve the interests of its people. Their central tenant was that government serve the people at the will of the people. If the people will a strong central organization and that best serves them then that is the best way for government to opperate. If disperate government with weak central powers is what the people choose and it serves them well than that is the best way for it to opperate.

What we have found is that to best ensure the liberties we hold so dear, we have had to organize a strong central government to protect said liberty agaisnt small tyrants who would deprive it of us on a local and regional basis. While some indeed feared that a strong central state might lead to a loss of liberty, many of them held most dear the liberty to exploit other peoople which is of coruse just tyrany in disguise.


The 14th amendment, poorly worded, has practically destroyed this nation.

Ah, you mean the most powerful and prosperous nation in the world, and the most powerful and prosperous the world has ever known? That nation? The one that really wasn't all that powerful or all that prosperous before the civil war but afterwards became the greatest and often most admired on earth and in history? Ya, we really got wrecked there! And to think if only we'd let the south succede based on the principle of federalism and perpetuate slavery into the 20th century we'd be all so much better off and our nation so much stronger and more free.

Sorry but you are living in a fantacy of your own creation. National unity and a commitment to individual liberty is what makes America great. Not the rights of local land barons to exploit people of a different skin color, religion, or ethnic herritage. That has not made america great, nor will it ever do so.


Government, in general, picks winners and losers in society. One of the strengths of our nation, and a reason why it has been able to stand as one, is because the founders recognized that when one group is always a loser, then they are more likely to rebel. Today, whichever party holds the Congress and Executive branches, because of the 14th amendment, gets to decide winners and losers for the entire nation, no longer limited by the concept of states rights. As such, we get four and eight year cycles where nearly half the people are consistent losers. This probably does not bother you. The ends justify the means and if they are losers due to their own ignorant views, then you couldn't care less. However, this also creates constant discord and leads to violence and rebellion. Your means are not truly creating solutions even if they make you feel superior and morally smug.

Not even close to reality. The states wanted to dictate that all black men were loosers. The federal government stood for giveing blacks and whites an equal say. I don't see who the federal government has been dictating as loosers in society. I can't think of any categorical federal rules that are making whole classes of people suffer unduly or elevating others.

Do you have some specifics for me, some actual example anywhere near as relevant as slavery where the federal power has led to some terrible outcome of abrigation of liberty? I can provide you with hosts of cases where the federal government has come to the rescue of citizens treated disparigingly by local authorities.


You use the Vikings as an odd example. More relevant in the modern age is how governments like the Nazis, the Viet-Cong, the Communists, and the Khmer Rouge consolidated power to oppress the people. It should be noted that the Vikings had a fairly egalitarian society due. They didn't abuse their own people, and power, until the 19th century was not consolidated with a single king.

The vikiings abused everyone else. They raped, murderd, robbed and terrorized much of Europe for quite some time. They invented the lovely blood eagle. I love me some Vikings but they were right bastards to anyone they didn't see as part of their own clan.

Yes Nazis are bad. The Veit-Vong Khmer Rouge. Some communitsts are terrible, others not so much. The Veit-Cong arn't really in the same league. My point however was that non-centralized states can also be monstrous and that not all centralized states are monstrous. ISIS doesn't have a strong central government and they are doing plenty of evil these days. Evil and opression comes in all sizes. It only takes one person to think their life and desires take president over someone elses. Then it is only a question of how much power you have to do that kind of harm.


It is funny that you accuse me of being driven by irrational fear. Your entire argument is that states rights led to the atrocity that is slavery. However, slavery was ended nearly 150 years ago and its end predated the 14th amendment. You seem to fear that absent the 14th amendment and a return to Jeffersonian democracy would, somehow, lead to its reinstatement. That, my friend, is the height of irrational fear.

I never said it would return slavery. I only said that those who argued so strongly for state's rights at the time did so for the right to keep other human beings from having rights and many of those today most adamant about states rights seek the right to foster some other oppression protected by our bill of rights.

And if you knew your history you would know the 14th ammendment was part and parcel to the outcome of the civil war and was created with the intent of keeping southern states from disenfranchising black citizens in any way they could muster short of slavery.

Ibelsd
July 28th, 2016, 03:10 PM
If that moral view is liberty, yes absolutely. I believe strongly in monopoly of power in order to ensure a power vacuum. If the federal government didn't ensure a freedom of speech, then many states may well exclude that freedom. The freedom to deny other people freedom is not freedom. Opression used to remove opression is not real opression. ODN is a decent example. We limit the kinds of things people can do with the intent of allowing most people to have civil discussions. Is it tyrany to kick out spammers and trolls? Or is it a way to allow mostly decent people to discuss important topics?

Ther is a line of thinking that any and all authority is bad. I don't ascribe to that. I think authority used for ill is bad. If authority is unchecked then there is no means for stopping it from being bad. However, provided you have the means to keep authority in check, then it is not bad in and of itself. It can in fact be used to stop bad people from doing bad things. Wihtout any authority bad people can act unchecked by any limitations. That is true Tyrany.



That is not the intent, or at least not mine. My intent is to keep bigots from opressing and mistreating those who are the target of their biggotry. They can think what they like and express what they like, but they can't act on those impulses that call on them to harrass the target of their narrow minded hatred. And of couse since they can speak their crappy thoughts, I can counter them with mine and they will have to listen as I tell them what idiots they are but I won't use force to silence them.



Legally I don't care how people feel. Socialy, well ya, I will marginalize the hell out of folks that are assholes to others. It's not like by accepting their bigoted views I am going to see any greater unity, their whole viewpoint is one of seperation and marginalization. But turning on them I create no greater disharmony than they already proposed themselves. All I am doing is standing with the people they are attacking, making it so instead of them corraling off and attacking a small group, they are the small group corraling themselves off with their hateful views while the rest of us stand in solidarity treating eachother as human beings of equal respect.



What exactly would have pre civil war states done to stop the patriot act? States have never really had the ability to stop federal actions unless the jurisdiction crossed into the state.


But it is not the hands of a few, it is the hands of all. Every state sends representatives that make up the bulk of the poewer of the federal government.



I think you utterly misunderstand the founding fathers. They had no special fear of central government, they had a fear of government that did not serve the interests of its people. Their central tenant was that government serve the people at the will of the people. If the people will a strong central organization and that best serves them then that is the best way for government to opperate. If disperate government with weak central powers is what the people choose and it serves them well than that is the best way for it to opperate.

What we have found is that to best ensure the liberties we hold so dear, we have had to organize a strong central government to protect said liberty agaisnt small tyrants who would deprive it of us on a local and regional basis. While some indeed feared that a strong central state might lead to a loss of liberty, many of them held most dear the liberty to exploit other peoople which is of coruse just tyrany in disguise.


Ah, you mean the most powerful and prosperous nation in the world, and the most powerful and prosperous the world has ever known? That nation? The one that really wasn't all that powerful or all that prosperous before the civil war but afterwards became the greatest and often most admired on earth and in history? Ya, we really got wrecked there! And to think if only we'd let the south succede based on the principle of federalism and perpetuate slavery into the 20th century we'd be all so much better off and our nation so much stronger and more free.

Sorry but you are living in a fantacy of your own creation. National unity and a commitment to individual liberty is what makes America great. Not the rights of local land barons to exploit people of a different skin color, religion, or ethnic herritage. That has not made america great, nor will it ever do so.


Not even close to reality. The states wanted to dictate that all black men were loosers. The federal government stood for giveing blacks and whites an equal say. I don't see who the federal government has been dictating as loosers in society. I can't think of any categorical federal rules that are making whole classes of people suffer unduly or elevating others.

Do you have some specifics for me, some actual example anywhere near as relevant as slavery where the federal power has led to some terrible outcome of abrigation of liberty? I can provide you with hosts of cases where the federal government has come to the rescue of citizens treated disparigingly by local authorities.



The vikiings abused everyone else. They raped, murderd, robbed and terrorized much of Europe for quite some time. They invented the lovely blood eagle. I love me some Vikings but they were right bastards to anyone they didn't see as part of their own clan.

Yes Nazis are bad. The Veit-Vong Khmer Rouge. Some communitsts are terrible, others not so much. The Veit-Cong arn't really in the same league. My point however was that non-centralized states can also be monstrous and that not all centralized states are monstrous. ISIS doesn't have a strong central government and they are doing plenty of evil these days. Evil and opression comes in all sizes. It only takes one person to think their life and desires take president over someone elses. Then it is only a question of how much power you have to do that kind of harm.



I never said it would return slavery. I only said that those who argued so strongly for state's rights at the time did so for the right to keep other human beings from having rights and many of those today most adamant about states rights seek the right to foster some other oppression protected by our bill of rights.

And if you knew your history you would know the 14th ammendment was part and parcel to the outcome of the civil war and was created with the intent of keeping southern states from disenfranchising black citizens in any way they could muster short of slavery.

1) Do you agree that government (regardless of level) determines winners and losers?
-- As an example: The environmental rules put in place by the Obama administration has reduced coal mining jobs. Putting aside whether you believe this is good or bad, the point is that the rules determine winners and losers in the energy industry. If each state had its own ability to determine environmental regulations then the winners and losers may not be concentrated to a specific industries across the entire nation. In addition, the losers would have more recourse since the local government would have to be held accountable more directly than the federal government.

2) A strong central government, at the cost of states autonomy, lends to a more pronounced set of winners and losers. At one extreme, if no central government existed, then there would be winners and losers within each of the 50 states. In some states, conservatives would be winners. In some states, liberals would be winners. In most states conservatives and liberals would be winners on some issues and losers on others as most governments would tend to be moderate. However, on the opposite end of the spectrum, where the federal government has absolute authority, the winners would almost solely be those who voted for the winning national party. Across the entire nation there would be one group of winners and one group of losers. There would be almost no recourse to the losers and the chance to become a winner would not occur until the next election cycle of 2-8 years.
-- You will argue that the losers still have local representation at the federal level. However, those representatives would be powerless in our two party system when the other party is in control. Whereas a weak central government allows winners and losers of all ideologies to co-exist, a strong central government allows for a rather narrow set of winners and very little mobility.

3) When one group is consistently a loser there will be strife and little willingness to compromise.
-- We see it today. When one party takes power, the other party digs in there heels to resist. Federal power is all that matters so the minority party will choose to obstruct rather than compromise. Since winning at the local level means very little, everyone fights for power at the top. We see it very clearly in our national politics where the two parties are unable to compromise. We see it every day as those who perceive themselves as losers behave in increasingly hostile and violent ways. What options do they really have if they wish to be heard.

4) The 14th amendment was passed by Congress about one year after the civil war and was a response to the ex-Confederate states passing laws which prevented blacks born to slaves from voting. The argument was that these blacks were not citizens since their parents were not born in the U.S. and were not considered citizens. Congress recognized that the black slaves were brought here against their will and that their children, born on U.S. soil, should be considered U.S. citizens. It was not part of the outcome of the civil war. It was a response to Southern states after the war had ended. The amendment, itself, was well intended. Congress did not intend to put an end to the concept of states rights. I would like to make a specific point here. I am not arguing for the abolishment of the U.S. government. I am arguing that is has overstepped its rightful place and this amendment is a prime reason why this has occurred. What is key to remember here is that prior to the civil war some states allowed slavery and others did not. In your utopia, where a central government reigns supreme, there would never have been free states. There would never have been a civil war. The central government would have dictated that all states should permit slavery. We know this because without such a concession, the slave states would never have agreed to enter the union in the first place. The slave states agreed to a compromise, but if you wanted a central government that picked all the winners and losers, then a compromise could never have existed.

5) A strong central government has not broadened our liberties as you suggest. Whether it is the Patriot Act or court orders which prevent states from outlawing abortion, liberty has been curbed. What is liberty if I cannot live my life per my moral convictions? Is it religious freedom when a church must offer information on abortion options to its employees? Is it free speech when a shop keeper is forced to bake a cake for a homosexual couple? I get that stomping on perceived bigotry makes lots of people feel good and righteous. However, to confuse this as some sort of enligtened liberty is merely kidding ourselves. We have merely replaced one bigotry with another. Heaped one intolerance over another.

6) You asked what states prior to the civil war could have done to prevent the Patriot Act. Maybe, a better question would be; without the 16th amendment, could the U.S. government have ever enacted the Patriot Act? The 14th amendment was just the gateway for the federal government. The 16th amendment gave the U.S. government the means. So, prior to the civil war, there couldn't have been a Patriot Act because the states wouldn't have been likely to fund the federal government for such a program. And if such a program had been funded, it would have been temporary.

7) You have this odd and irrational fear that people are unable to govern themselves without some big powerful daddy figure keeping them in check. I am much more worried about the federal government picking winners and losers than my local government.

MindTrap028
July 30th, 2016, 05:46 AM
So a sincere intent to succeed is necessary which means that you must show that your plans to take up arms can reasonably lead to success before it could be considered morally correct. And that means that one must figure out the likelihood of success BEFORE they take up arms. The odds of success is very relevant to whether taking up arms is a morally correct action.
Well, I don't have to offer my reasoning if it is my own sincere intent to succeed. If I were trying to convince you that would be what I need to do, but at the point of taking up arms the convincing is all done.

It is however important for you to know that on some issues there is a line in which people will simply take up arms and stop talking. To the extent you "care" about that is up to you I suppose.


But if I don't care what you think, I would dismiss BOTH claim
That is only you assuming your point. You think it is only what I think that I am communicating.
So you are begging the question.
Anyway, you are confusing the issue badly and I have said all I can on it.

mican333
July 30th, 2016, 07:51 AM
Well, I don't have to offer my reasoning if it is my own sincere intent to succeed. If I were trying to convince you that would be what I need to do, but at the point of taking up arms the convincing is all done.

Your argument says that taking up arms is all that one can do once legal recourse fails. And of course it's not. One can also do nothing at all.

So we have two option.
1. Take up arms
2. Do nothing.

If you have convinced yourself, no matter how (hypothetically) stupid or (hypothetically) crazy your reasoning is, that taking up arms is likely to do more good than harm in protecting life, then I suppose your morals are correct no matter how misguided your actions may be.

But once you start talking about someone other than yourself doing likewise, THEN you do need to provide reason to believe that taking up arms will do more good than harm. If you can't convince "Frank" that taking up arms will do more good than harm and he doesn't come to that conclusion on his own (and you have provided no reason why he should), then he is morally better off doing nothing than taking up arms and therefore you have provided no justification for people in general to take up arms to protect the unborn.

So as a general statement, it is not at all supported that people should take up arms to protect the unborn once the legal recourse has clearly failed. You might be able to internally justify your own actions if you were to commit violence in the name of protecting the unborn (although I'm guessing you have no way to externally justify it), but that's about it.



It is however important for you to know that on some issues there is a line in which people will simply take up arms and stop talking.

And by all available evidence, abortion is not one of those issues as evidenced by the fact that no one has taken up arms in any significant numbers to fight abortion and those who have committed violence in the name of protecting the unborn have been rejected by mainstream pro-life groups.

The pro-life establishment generally distanced themselves from Donald Trump's remark that women who get abortions should be legally punished. But obviously they are not against punishing mothers who have someone else murder their born babies. So pro-lifers generally don't hold that killing the unborn and killing the born is exactly the same (which is not to say that they don't want them both outlawed). So the fact that pro-lifers aren't taking up arms in any significant number regarding the current abortion laws and clearly don't feel that killing the born and the unborn are exactly the same (they are against both, of course, but not to the same degree) shows that the notion that pro-lifers will, en masse, take up arms EVER is extremely unlikely.



That is only you assuming your point. You think it is only what I think that I am communicating.
So you are begging the question

No, I am not. You are saying that I would dismiss a claim based on subjective morality. I'm accepting that for the sake of argument.

So Joe says "it's my opinion that murder is immoral" and I don't care what Joe says so I dismiss that claim. Why do I dismiss that claim? Because:
1. Joe is telling me what's in his head (and I don't care what's in his head)
2. Joe is not telling me anything that is of interest to me.

So what if Joe says "Murder is objectively immoral"? First off, if Joe doesn't support that position, then all I'm getting from Joe is that he THINKS that murder is objectively immoral so:
1. Joe is telling me what's in his head (and I don't care what's in his head)

But setting that aside, IF murder is indeed objectively immoral, then that does have actual consequences for me and I should take interest. But does Joe himself saying that murder is objectively immoral have any effect on me? Not in the least. I've been aware of the notion of objective morality and its consequences long before Joe mentioned this to me. So Joe's claim does not add anything to my knowledge base regarding objective morality beyond the fact that Joe agrees that it exists. But since I don't care what Joe thinks:
2. Joe is not telling me anything that is of interest to me.

So assuming I don't care what Joe thinks, I would dismiss his claim that morality is subjective and I would dismiss his claim that morality is objective.

Joe has tell me something that I don't already know or have a reason to take interest in before he makes a claim that I won't dismiss.

MindTrap028
July 30th, 2016, 04:35 PM
So assuming I don't care what Joe thinks, I would dismiss his claim that morality is subjective and I would dismiss his claim that morality is objective.
Which of course is irrelevant to the strength of the claim. You are attacking and addressing the one claiming.
You say you don't care what he thinks, well that is fine, but it isn't an argument against his position.


But setting that aside, IF murder is indeed objectively immoral, then that does have actual consequences for me and I should take interest.
yes, my point exactly. The kind of claim it is is superior and thus inherently more interesting then one which self identifies as a personal imagination.

You appear to be jumping through quite a few hoops to equate a subjective claim with an objective claim.
When of course they are fundamentally different claims. There is a defense for an objective claim which makes it critically important, and that is it's possible truth value.
The subjective claim discredits itself inherently, and is thus incomparable.



Your argument says that taking up arms is all that one can do once legal recourse fails. And of course it's not. One can also do nothing at all.

So we have two option.
1. Take up arms
2. Do nothing.
I see, you turn an inaction into an action. got it.
You can "do" nothing.

Sure you got the two alternatives down. Do something or do nothing. but when we are picking from the choices that are actions, and not inaction by definition.. That leaves only one recourse.
Ie there is only one means to fight back.. and that is to actually fight. (Again, in the context that all legal, voting type actions have been closed).


So as a general statement, it is not at all supported that people should take up arms to protect the unborn once the legal recourse has clearly failed.
Well, your clearly not seeing that statement from the eyes of one that values the life of the unborn equal to any 2 year old.

Exactly when should a person pick up arms to protect children, if not when there is no other legal recourse?


(although I'm guessing you have no way to externally justify it)
I am not sure what this means? Externally justify? Like offer an argument to those who value the life of the unborn equal to.... (as said before)?
I'm not really sure that would be a very hard sell, it really just depends on how apparent it is that the legal means are not viable.

It's would be like an argument to take up arms to maintain your right to bare arms. That is directly proportional to the lack of legal protection of it, and the threat to take them.
For example, Katrina had the gov going door to door confiscating guns military style. Yet that didn't spark a guns revolt because there was legal avenues to address that injustice. And indeed that is exactly what occurred. The gov lost in court.

So it has to be very apparent that the legal avenues are gone. That is the external justification.. basically in any instance regarding a strongly held moral position.

mican333
July 31st, 2016, 08:15 AM
Which of course is irrelevant to the strength of the claim. You are attacking and addressing the one claiming.
You say you don't care what he thinks, well that is fine, but it isn't an argument against his position.

I'm not arguing against his position. I'm dismissing his claim for it tells me nothing of interest.

Let's divide claims into two categories

1. Of Interest
2. Dismissible.

Basically, if a claim is not Of Interest, then it's Dismissible. I don't care if he thinks morality is objective just like I don't care if someone else thinks that morality is subjective.

Now, if you are saying that the moral objective perspective is of interest because it says more than just what the person thinks, then maybe you have a point. More on that below.



yes, my point exactly. The kind of claim it is is superior and thus inherently more interesting then one which self identifies as a personal imagination.

It depends on what he's actually claiming. If one is just saying that he thinks that murder is objectively wrong and I don't care what he thinks, then his claim is dismissible.

On the other hand, if the claimant is attempting to make a statement about the nature of morality, as in say it's a fact that morality is objective when they say that murder is objectively immoral, then he is saying something interesting. But then if the claimant is saying that morality is subjective when he claims that murder is subjectively immoral then he is likewise saying something of interest.

So I think the problem of you thinking one claim is "of interest" and the other is "dismissible" is because you are not comparing two comparative claims. You seem to be comparing a claim about the nature of reality in regards to objective morality to someone just saying what he thinks regarding subjective morality. If you switch that around, and compare a claim regarding the nature of reality in regards to subjective morality to someone just saying what he thinks regarding objective morality, then you'd accept the subjective claim and dismiss the objective claim.

So if you use the same criteria for both claims, then both claims are equally acceptable or dismissible.



I see, you turn an inaction into an action. got it.
You can "do" nothing.

Sure you got the two alternatives down. Do something or do nothing. but when we are picking from the choices that are actions, and not inaction by definition.. That leaves only one recourse.
Ie there is only one means to fight back.. and that is to actually fight. (Again, in the context that all legal, voting type actions have been closed).

Actually, there are all kinds of other actions you can take. You can continue to try to change the laws.

I know in your hypothetical scenario the legal recourse has failed and will always fail. But given that, trying to change the law is still an action. The problem, of course, is that it's an ineffective action (per your scenario). So if you are rejecting ineffective actions as valid actions, then it stands to reason that the only actions that one should take to protect the unborn are effective actions.

So it needs to be supported that taking up arms is an effective action in order to be a valid action. If taking up arms is not an effective action, then trying to change the law again is a better option because while it is also ineffective, at least no one gets hurt.




Well, your clearly not seeing that statement from the eyes of one that values the life of the unborn equal to any 2 year old.

Exactly when should a person pick up arms to protect children, if not when there is no other legal recourse?

As I argued, and supported, in my last post (you basically ignored it), practically NO ONE sees the unborn the same as a born child. Since I supported that position in my last post, I will not support it here. It stands until you at least attempt to rebut it.

If there was a law legalizing the killing of born babies, not only would many, many people take up arms to stop it, they would almost certainly be effective in preventing the law from being applied (their numbers would be so large that success is practically guaranteed). They would effectively prevent many, maybe all, attempts to kill born babies from happening. They would effectively remove whoever passed the law from office - by force if needed.

And yet that doesn't happen when it comes to abortion. Almost a million fetuses are killed each year and almost no opponents of abortion take up arms. And the legal recourse has already failed. There is nothing legal that one can do to stop thousands of fetuses from dying tomorrow or the next day or the next day. Maybe one day the pro-lifers will win the legal battle (but that's extremely unlikely given the current public view of abortion) but that won't save any fetuses that have died over the past decades or the ones that will die this year or the next (whatever legal victory may happen won't be for a while). So if people actually agreed that arms should be taken up to protect the unborn when legal recourse has failed, it would be happening NOW. It's quite clear that very few people feel that the killing of nearly a million fetuses a year is something that one should take up arms to prevent. If they did, we'd have seen armed opposition by now.


I am not sure what this means? Externally justify? Like offer an argument to those who value the life of the unborn equal to.... (as said before)?
I'm not really sure that would be a very hard sell, it really just depends on how apparent it is that the legal means are not viable.

I think it would be a very hard sell. The proposed action has to be perceived as effective before a reasonable person would agree to do it. Let me present a hypothetical pitch between you and Frank.

MT: There is no legal recours to prevent abortion. We need to take up arms to protect the unborn!
F: I agree that we need to protect the unborn by any means necessary and I'm willing to take up arms. I've got my gun right here. Now what?
MT: Let's use our guns to protect the unborn.
F: Sounds great. So how can I use my gun to protect the unborn?
MT: ...

Since I don't know what your plan might be, I have to stop there. But unless you tell Frank how he can use his gun to effectively protect the unborn, he won't go along with you. So you do have a hard sell. Frank doesn't want to commit violence unless it's for the greater good so until you explain how your plan will effectively do more good than harm, Frank won't join you.

So in a nutshell, you do have to present an effective plan to protect the unborn before you can externally justify (as in get others to agree that you are justified in your actions) taking up arms to protect the unborn and get reasonable people to join you.



So it has to be very apparent that the legal avenues are gone. That is the external justification.. basically in any instance regarding a strongly held moral position.

So if you took up arms and shot the first mailman you see, you could externally justify that by pointing out that the legal avenues to outlaw abortion are gone? Of course not. So just taking up arms and committing violence is not automatically justified because of the legal avenues closing.

Again, you need to clearly explain how whatever action you took did, or at least was suppose to, do more good than harm in your fight to protect the unborn.

Something as vague as "taking up arms" is not automatically justified. Shooting a mailman qualifies as "taking up arms".

MindTrap028
August 2nd, 2016, 06:55 PM
Now, if you are saying that the moral objective perspective is of interest because it says more than just what the person thinks, then maybe you have a point. More on that below.
Yea, that is what I'm saying.


It depends on what he's actually claiming. If one is just saying that he thinks that murder is objectively wrong and I don't care what he thinks, then his claim is dismissible.
Not really. It is as dismiss able as my claim that you are standing in quicksand.
Vs
I had a dream of you standing in quicksand.


So I think the problem of you thinking one claim is "of interest" and the other is "dismissible" is because you are not comparing two comparative claims. You seem to be comparing a claim about the nature of reality in regards to objective morality to someone just saying what he thinks regarding subjective morality. If you switch that around, and compare a claim regarding the nature of reality in regards to subjective morality to someone just saying what he thinks regarding objective morality, then you'd accept the subjective claim and dismiss the objective claim.
I disagree. The claims have those elements assumed in them.

If I say "I think murder is objectively wrong" that is not equally dismissable of a claim, as I imagine ... xyz.

Again, see quick sand example.
Dismissing it is just intellectual laziness. Where as the subjective person can be dismissed on the quality of what they are forwarding being self identifying as not relevant.


As I argued, and supported, in my last post (you basically ignored it), practically NO ONE sees the unborn the same as a born child. Since I supported that position in my last post, I will not support it here. It stands until you at least attempt to rebut it.
Yea, I see that.


So the fact that pro-lifers aren't taking up arms in any significant number regarding the current abortion laws and clearly don't feel that killing the born and the unborn are exactly the same (they are against both, of course, but not to the same degree) shows that the notion that pro-lifers will, en masse, take up arms EVER is extremely unlikely.
This doesn't follow. Just because people are not currently taking up arms, doesn't mean that they won't, or that they inherently see the unborn as different.
I use myself as an example, and offered an alternate reason for why one would not take up arms.
I also offered a kind of measure as to when we could expect actual taking up of arms. (The whole, proportional to how viable the legal options are). Currently I think the legal options are seen as very viable.
As to counter evidence, every state had outlawed abortion, and it wasn't because they saw the unborn as different than the born. That is not all that long ago.


And yet that doesn't happen when it comes to abortion. Almost a million fetuses are killed each year and almost no opponents of abortion take up arms. And the legal recourse has already failed. There is nothing legal that one can do to stop thousands of fetuses from dying tomorrow or the next day or the next day. Maybe one day the pro-lifers will win the legal battle (but that's extremely unlikely given the current public view of abortion) but that won't save any fetuses that have died over the past decades or the ones that will die this year or the next (whatever legal victory may happen won't be for a while). So if people actually agreed that arms should be taken up to protect the unborn when legal recourse has failed, it would be happening NOW. It's quite clear that very few people feel that the killing of nearly a million fetuses a year is something that one should take up arms to prevent. If they did, we'd have seen armed opposition by now.
Disagree, see above. The legal option is still seen as very viable, that is why the "pro life" label is relevant to conservative candidates. It isn't just for advertising.
Now I'm not disagreeing that your take on the actual legal hopes are not true, just that they are not seen that way by pro-lifers.


I think it would be a very hard sell.
But you also don't think the unborn is seen the same as the born by the pro-life side. Which is pretty false as far as I can tell.
How people act on it may be different, but again... I argued above why it didn't follow.

That people don't act, doesn't mean they don't feel a certain way. Like, do you want kids to starve? Are you o.k. with that?
Well, have you given anything to feed the hungry children of some distant country you never heard of? .. probably not.
But that doesn't mean that you are o.k. with kids starving. (not really directed at you personally).


So if you took up arms and shot the first mailman you see, you could externally justify that by pointing out that the legal avenues to outlaw abortion are gone? Of course not. So just taking up arms and committing violence is not automatically justified because of the legal avenues closing.

Again, you need to clearly explain how whatever action you took did, or at least was suppose to, do more good than harm in your fight to protect the unborn.

Something as vague as "taking up arms" is not automatically justified. Shooting a mailman qualifies as "taking up arms".
umm... o.k.
I really don't see the relevance of this line. certainly some actions are going to be more relevant than others.
That you can imagine some very dumb attempts... isn't really relevant to the point as far as I can tell.



Actually, there are all kinds of other actions you can take. You can continue to try to change the laws.

I know in your hypothetical scenario the legal recourse has failed and will always fail. But given that, trying to change the law is still an action. The problem, of course, is that it's an ineffective action (per your scenario). So if you are rejecting ineffective actions as valid actions, then it stands to reason that the only actions that one should take to protect the unborn are effective actions.

So it needs to be supported that taking up arms is an effective action in order to be a valid action. If taking up arms is not an effective action, then trying to change the law again is a better option because while it is also ineffective, at least no one gets hurt.

So, I take your point about effectiveness.
But you have already laid out the two options available to a person given the situation.
Ether take up arms, or do nothing and accept the new reality.
that is pretty much exhaustive.

On a sincerely held moral position, taking up arms is the only action left. (Non action being... well a non action).

I really don't see how that statement has been negated or shown false by anything you have argued yet. You have at best offered a reason for people to give up their morals and accept the new reality.. after all "It won't do any good anyway".
But I reject that there must be hope or even a good argument for success when it comes to a moral line in the sand.

---For example---
Some are coming to take my children away and do bad things. Talks(Ie all other legal actions) have broken down, so my only recourse is to ... take up arms(or do nothing).
Your argument is..
Well there are to many, and you have no hope of success.
or, what good is shooting the mailman going to do?
or, you got to give me a good plan with reasonable hope of success before I would help you.

Now do you see the problem with that argument? Doing nothing is not really an option, nor should it be if people are going to hack your family up with machetes. (see movie hotel Rwandan)

Unless of course you disagree that the above is a moral line in the sand issue? Maybe it's relative and doesn't really matter? :) (intended as a good natured zinger).
---
Your second argument is.. basically "abortion isn't that kind of issue".
Fair enough, maybe it isn't, I think it is because at least for me, I think it is. So there are SOME who feel that way. You may hope I am in a extremely small minority.


There are other issues, like guns.

My point is simply there are issues like that out there.
Let me end this portion of the exchange with this. It will be for me a real world test to see if you are right, and that abortion is not one of these issues.

Watch the catholic church hospitals interaction with the Obama care law as it pushes them to preform abortions, and other abortion equivalents to the catholic community.
If the Catholics close their hospitals, or take a stand and refuse.. then I am more likely to be right.
If they do not, then I concede the point.

Other than some real life movement, we simply can not know who is correct here on this board. It could be that people stand silent for many more years and wake up to the fact that the political landscape is hopeless for any progress for pro-life believers, and various communities physically refuse to allow abortion doctors to do business in their towns, by force of arms. (200 armed citizens are too much for local police to do anything with). P.s. that doesn't inherently mean shooting people.

Or... it could never happen.
Point, if I am right, there wouldn't be any proof until it happens.

mican333
August 3rd, 2016, 09:48 AM
I disagree. The claims have those elements assumed in them.

If I say "I think murder is objectively wrong" that is not equally dismissable of a claim, as I imagine ... xyz.

But the claim "murder is subjectively wrong" is not say "I imagine". The claim that murder is subjectively wrong includes the premise that there is no external moral source just as the claim that murder is objectively wrong includes the claim that there is an objective moral source. So they are equal in that regard.


Dismissing it is just intellectual laziness. Where as the subjective person can be dismissed on the quality of what they are forwarding being self identifying as not relevant.

But the claim that morality is subjective is not self-identifying. It's a claim about the nature of morality just as the claim that morality is objective is a claim about the nature of morality.

Both claims give a position about the origin of morality. If one claim is of interest, then so is the other.

And the quicksand analogy is flawed for, unlike morality, one can immediately see if they are standing in quicksand or not. A good analogy would contain something that might be true but cannot be confirmed by direct observation.




This doesn't follow. Just because people are not currently taking up arms, doesn't mean that they won't, or that they inherently see the unborn as different.

Actually, it does follow. If one sees two things as the same, it stands to reason that they will behave in the same fashion regarding what happens to both of them.

As an example, if a man attempts to rescue a child he doesn't know from drowning in a pool, it stands to reason that he will attempt to do the same for a different child.

If the state legalized child murder, people would take up arms to prevent children from being murdered - likely before the first child is ever killed. If the people won't take up arms to protect something else in a similar manner, then it stands to reason that they view that thing different from a child.




I also offered a kind of measure as to when we could expect actual taking up of arms. (The whole, proportional to how viable the legal options are). Currently I think the legal options are seen as very viable.

I consider the taking up of arms is what happens when people find a situation intolerable. So when it comes to abortion, what is intolerable about it? Is the slaughter of nearly a million fetuses intolerable? Apparently not because this happens every year with very few people willing to take up arms to prevent it (and those who do take up arms are decried by most mainstream pro-lifers). You seem to be saying that when the legal recourse has run out is when people will say "this is intolerable" and take up arms. So that suggests that people will take up arm to challenge the lack of legal options to reverse the law even though they tolerate the legal killing of the unborn.

So having legal options is the issue and not the actual killing of the unborn.




As to counter evidence, every state had outlawed abortion, and it wasn't because they saw the unborn as different than the born. That is not all that long ago.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT that every state had outlawed abortion. I'm pretty sure you are wrong about that (as in individual states had legal abortions prior to Roe v. Wade).



Disagree, see above. The legal option is still seen as very viable, that is why the "pro life" label is relevant to conservative candidates. It isn't just for advertising.
Now I'm not disagreeing that your take on the actual legal hopes are not true, just that they are not seen that way by pro-lifers.

Any positive legal outcome for pro-lifers is years away at best. So in the meantime, they are apparently tolerating the killing of millions of fetuses (tolerating to the extent that they are opposed to taking up arms to prevent millions of more being killed in the future for the legal recourse to save them does not exist - at best they can save fetuses after millions more have died).



That people don't act, doesn't mean they don't feel a certain way. Like, do you want kids to starve? Are you o.k. with that?
Well, have you given anything to feed the hungry children of some distant country you never heard of? .. probably not.
But that doesn't mean that you are o.k. with kids starving. (not really directed at you personally).

There is a wide gulf between "not okay with it" and "feels the need to take up arms to prevent it from happening". So for starving children in Africa and abortion I'm not Okay with it. If born children were being legally killed in my country (locality is relevant), I would feel the need to take up arms to prevent it from happening.

And that's because I view these things differently. And the same goes for everyone else.

Do you disagree that people would immediately take up arms to prevent the killing of born children if child killing were legalized? So why don't they do the same for unborn children? What is stopping them from taking up arms RIGHT NOW to prevent ONE MORE fetus from dying? It's CLEARLY the fact that they aren't as concerned for the life of the unborn (which is not to say that they are unconcerned) as they are for the born. CLEARLY.




So, I take your point about effectiveness.
But you have already laid out the two options available to a person given the situation.
Ether take up arms, or do nothing and accept the new reality.
that is pretty much exhaustive.

That's not even close to exhaustive. I laid out a third option in my last post. You can still attempt to change the law. Yes, it's an ineffective action, but it's still an action. And here's some more actions you can take. Hold a protest. Write a blog. Write a song. Make a video. Put on a play. Talk to your neighbors. And I could go on and on with more options. The options are practically limitless.

So let's compare "write a blog" to "take up arms". Between the two actions, I'd recommend the blog option. I don't see it as any less effective than taking up arms and no one will get hurt if you write a blog.

So there you go. You should write a blog instead of take up arms or do nothing at all. And if you reject that option for being ineffective, then you are conceding that an action needs to be effective to be worth doing and therefore need to show that taking up arms will be effective before you can support that it's worth doing.




I really don't see how that statement has been negated or shown false by anything you have argued yet. You have at best offered a reason for people to give up their morals and accept the new reality.. after all "It won't do any good anyway".
But I reject that there must be hope or even a good argument for success when it comes to a moral line in the sand.

Then write a blog.



Some are coming to take my children away and do bad things. Talks(Ie all other legal actions) have broken down, so my only recourse is to ... take up arms(or do nothing).
Your argument is..
Well there are to many, and you have no hope of success.
or, what good is shooting the mailman going to do?
or, you got to give me a good plan with reasonable hope of success before I would help you.

Now do you see the problem with that argument? Doing nothing is not really an option, nor should it be if people are going to hack your family up with machetes.

But the issue is not people hacking up my family but abortion so your scenario does not present a problem with my argument. My argument applies to abortion, not hacking up my own family.

The problem with introducing one own's family is that it adds an emotional element which can override logical and moral considerations. For example, it's feasible that someone would let two other children die to save his own child which would be an immoral, although understandable, thing.

So let's make it about the killing of born children in general. Using that, my argument still stands. If you can't show that taking up arms will make a positive difference, it's not a good course of action to take (which doesn't mean that one is forced to take no action - they can do something else to attempt to oppose the law).




Other than some real life movement, we simply can not know who is correct here on this board. It could be that people stand silent for many more years and wake up to the fact that the political landscape is hopeless for any progress for pro-life believers, and various communities physically refuse to allow abortion doctors to do business in their towns, by force of arms. (200 armed citizens are too much for local police to do anything with). P.s. that doesn't inherently mean shooting people.

Or... it could never happen.
Point, if I am right, there wouldn't be any proof until it happens.

But we don't need proof to win this debate. We need support.

I have provided ample support that people are not willing to take up arms to defend the unborn by the fact that they have enough tolerance of nearly a million fetuses being killed each year to not take up arms and even generally oppose those few who do take up arms against abortion providers.

Going back to your goons killing my family analogy, I would consider "legal recourses finished" when the goons showed up at my door and would not hold off taking up arms because I see the possibility of reversing the law in the future, even if I was optimistic that it would happen one of these days. No, the day the killing starts is when there is no legal ability to prevent the killing from happening. So quite simply, if I refuse to take up arms to prevent the killing when it starts and also refuse to take up arms after millions have been killed, it's safe to say that I have little intention of ever taking up arms and realizing that I will never be able to change the law won't be much of a catalyst. Again, if I was so offended by the killing that I'm willing to take up arms, I would be taking up arms as soon as the killing started. So this is ample support that pro-lifers will not be taking up arms, even if they one day realize that they will never overturn the law.

MindTrap028
August 4th, 2016, 01:14 PM
But the claim "murder is subjectively wrong" is not say "I imagine".
Well, yea, it kinda is.
Because the assumption is of course as you say, that there is no objective moral source.
But the claim is basically "I imagine murder to be wrong".

The end claims however are not equally dismiss able.


But the claim that morality is subjective is not self-identify
The assumption is self refuting. In that it claims that the objective moral truth, is that there is no objective moral truths.

and then the claim that follows is self identifying as non-relevant because it is a claim of what one imagines, in the expressed absence of moral truths(Ie objective).


Both claims give a position about the origin of morality. If one claim is of interest, then so is the other.
They both have an assumption, but those assumptions are not equally valid, nor are they both equally interesting. See above.


And the quicksand analogy is flawed for, unlike morality, one can immediately see if they are standing in quicksand or not. A good analogy would contain something that might be true but cannot be confirmed by direct observation.

It is not flawed, your ability to perceive does not negate the objective nature of standing in quicksand.
Don't miss the point of the analogy by looking for flaws that are irrelevant to the point of the analogy.


Actually, it does follow. If one sees two things as the same, it stands to reason that they will behave in the same fashion regarding what happens to both of them.
There are mitigating factors, that is why it doesn't follow. I offered my support and reasoning of those mitigating factors.

basically your oversimplifying how people act and why.


If the state legalized child murder, people would take up arms to prevent children from being murdered - likely before the first child is ever killed. If the people won't take up arms to protect something else in a similar manner, then it stands to reason that they view that thing different from a child.

But states have legalized murdering children, and we as a nation do not take up arms against them.
Soo.. now what? (again see history or rowanda or other mass murders that Americans have not taken up arms against).

mitigating factors, the ones I pointed out.


SUPPORT OR RETRACT that every state had outlawed abortion. I'm pretty sure you are wrong about that (as in individual states had legal abortions prior to Roe v. Wade).
Good call.


By the 1880s, all states had laws criminalizing abortions, and these laws stayed intact until the 1960s and 1970s.

http://family.findlaw.com/reproductive-rights/abortion-and-the-law-background.html

Basically Roe V wade overturned many state laws, which are a result of the expressed will of the people at the ballot box.
Where as judges are not elected.


Any positive legal outcome for pro-lifers is years away at best. So in the meantime, they are apparently tolerating the killing of millions of fetuses (tolerating to the extent that they are opposed to taking up arms to prevent millions of more being killed in the future for the legal recourse to save them does not exist - at best they can save fetuses after millions
Yes, we are tolerating it. With the hopes of peaceful resolution through legal means.


Do you disagree that people would immediately take up arms to prevent the killing of born children if child killing were legalized? So why don't they do the same for unborn children? What is stopping them from taking up arms RIGHT NOW to prevent ONE MORE fetus from dying? It's CLEARLY the fact that they aren't as concerned for the life of the unborn (which is not to say that they are unconcerned) as they are for the born. CLEARLY.
I already answered this question. In fact, the answer is a large part of my argument.
Perhaps you should review my argument?


That's not even close to exhaustive. I laid out a third option in my last post. You can still attempt to change the law. Yes, it's an ineffective action, but it's still an action. And here's some more actions you can take. Hold a protest. Write a blog. Write a song. Make a video. Put on a play. Talk to your neighbors. And I could go on and on with more options. The options are practically limitless.
Not in a world where those options are no longer an option. You know.. the premise of the argument.


Then write a blog.
Rejects a premise..
dismissed.


But the issue is not people hacking up my family but abortion so your scenario does not present a problem with my argument. My argument applies to abortion, not hacking up my own family.
Yes it does.. think about it.


The problem with introducing one own's family is that it adds an emotional element which can override logical and moral considerations. For example, it's feasible that someone would let two other children die to save his own child which would be an immoral, although understandable, thing.
You have clearly forgotten the context of the debate.


Such is the case for my position on Abortion. Such that while the gov is failing it its job to put murderers away and protect the innocent, I have to submit to it's rule to the point that I have hope in changing that system through the legal process.
Short of that I have no recourse but to take up arms, and do the job the gov refuses to do, namely protect the innocent.

You have abandoned the "no hope of legal process resolution on a significant moral issue", and are appealing to hope at all costs.
That isn't what I claimed, or the point of the discussion.



But we don't need proof to win this debate. We need support.
Given some of your responses here, I don't think you are really engaged in the debate on the terms of the debate.

Your strongest and most relevant point regarding the fact that people have not yet started in regards to abortion, has been addressed.
I raise the point of mitigating factors, some of which you bring up yourself. Like locality matters.
Some of the people who have taken up arms in the past were directly effected by abortion, and didn't handle it well.
Also the immediate threat is an issue. There are many, many factors. These are sufficient to counter your point about how people are currently acting, and all are in line with exactly what I am arguing.


So.. that's that.
As to "winning" the debate. I have supported my claim, and offered an actual test to disprove it.
Or at least that will show it disproved in my own opinion. Some of your rebuttals are relevant, but you have abandoned some of the core elements of what you are objecting to, and are thus not really engaged in the argument.

If your counter to "if there is no hope to XYZ" is
"yea, but hope springs eternal in the blogosphere." Then I agree.
But that doesn't really address the point I made, now does it.


Anyway, thanks for the exchange. I'll answer direct questions and you can have the last word.

mican333
August 5th, 2016, 07:54 AM
First off, let's nail down the competing claims (as I think they may have shifted throughout the debate which is equally both of our faults). The claims are:

1. Murder is objectively wrong
2. Murder is subjectively wrong.

And we also agree that all ramifications of these claims (such as there is or is not a source of morality outside of the human mind) are included in these claims.


Well, yea, it kinda is.
Because the assumption is of course as you say, that there is no objective moral source.
But the claim is basically "I imagine murder to be wrong".

No. The claim is basically that no external source of morality exists. That is no more dismissible than the claim that an external source of morality does exist.

BOTH claims forward something about the nature of morality itself and just aren't about "me".



The assumption is self refuting. In that it claims that the objective moral truth, is that there is no objective moral truths.

and then the claim that follows is self identifying as non-relevant because it is a claim of what one imagines, in the expressed absence of moral truths(Ie objective).

If the subjective position is correct, it applies to EVERYONE in the world, not just the claimant. An accurate statement about the nature of humanity (especially something that was not know to be true until was shown to be correct) is not dismissible.





There are mitigating factors, that is why it doesn't follow.

Support or retract that there are relevant mitigating factors.




But states have legalized murdering children, and we as a nation do not take up arms against them.

I am referring to US states. And no, none have legalized murdering born children.





http://family.findlaw.com/reproductive-rights/abortion-and-the-law-background.html

Basically Roe V wade overturned many state laws, which are a result of the expressed will of the people at the ballot box.
Where as judges are not elected.

But I asked you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that every state had outlawed abortion prior to Roe. "Many" is not "all" and therefore your "evidence", at this point anyway, fails for lack of support.



Yes, we are tolerating it. With the hopes of peaceful resolution through legal means.

There is absolutely no legal means to protect the million or so fetuses that will die this year (again, any legal victory is years away). So you are tolerating the killing of millions of unborn. I see no valid reason to think that what is tolerable now will be intolerable in the future.




Not in a world where those options are no longer an option. You know.. the premise of the argument.

The only premise is that the law will not change. There is no premise that you can't write a blog. How about you write a blog to all of the women who are seeking to have an abortion that convinces them to not have an abortion. If you are successful, then no women will choose to have an abortion and you have succeeded in protecting the unborn with your blog.

So there you go. You have an option to take an action that, if successful, will save the unborn.

If you are going to argue against writing a blog because you don't think it would be successful in making any real difference, then it's an accepted premise that one must believe that an action will be successful before it is worth taking. And therefore before you can convince Frank to join you in armed resistance, you must show him that taking up arms would be successful.



You have abandoned the "no hope of legal process resolution on a significant moral issue", and are appealing to hope at all costs.
That isn't what I claimed, or the point of the discussion.

I'm sorry but you asked me what I would do if goons came for MY children. You made it about my own family which introduces an element that would significantly effect my decision but is not relevant to the debate at hand. But I think we can omit this factor by changing the scenario for goons coming for children that aren't my own. So let's say they came for my neighbors children instead and I don't know them well enough to have an emotional bond but of course still feel that those children should be protected.

I personally would be willing to commit violence to protect my neighbor's children or any children from killer goons. And if it so happened that I saw hope that one day the law against goons killing children could change, I would still take up arms protect my neighbor's children. In other words, once the goons showed up to kill children the legal options to prevent the killing of my neighbors children has run out. And it can be assumed that if I was the kind of person who sat back and watched the goons take away my neighbors children and then sat back and watched as millions more children are killed over the following decade, I do not care enough about children to take up arms to protect them. If I took up arms when I learned that there is no longer any legal option to stop the legal killing of children, I would taking up arms over the lack of legal options, not over the killing of children.

So the fact that pro-lifers have not, with minor exceptions) taken up arms over the deaths of millions of fetuses over the past decades leads to only one of two possible conclusions.
1. They do not view fetuses as exactly the same as born children.
2. They would tolerate the murder of millions of born children if it were made legal to kill them just they have tolerated the death of millions of fetuses.

I would say common sense indicates 1 is accurate.



Your strongest and most relevant point regarding the fact that people have not yet started in regards to abortion, has been addressed.
I raise the point of mitigating factors, some of which you bring up yourself. Like locality matters.
Some of the people who have taken up arms in the past were directly effected by abortion, and didn't handle it well.
Also the immediate threat is an issue. There are many, many factors. These are sufficient to counter your point about how people are currently acting, and all are in line with exactly what I am arguing.

And I hold a different view on the respective qualities of our various points and how strong your points are and how strong my rebuttals is. It's a waste of time to go into specifics of what I think of the debate. My arguments are above and if you want to rebut them, then go ahead.




So.. that's that.
As to "winning" the debate. I have supported my claim, and offered an actual test to disprove it.
Or at least that will show it disproved in my own opinion. Some of your rebuttals are relevant, but you have abandoned some of the core elements of what you are objecting to, and are thus not really engaged in the argument.

Right. It's your opinion. I think sometimes you misunderstand my responses (which can happen to anyone). So really, this re-cap stuff is just a waste of time, debate-wise. You are basically just giving me your opinion which does not forward the debate.



If your counter to "if there is no hope to XYZ" is
"yea, but hope springs eternal in the blogosphere." Then I agree.
But that doesn't really address the point I made, now does it.

But then my point about the blog is not regarding hope springing eternal but just pointing out that there are other actions you can take. I didn't say that you would succeed in changing anything by writing a blog. So this kind of proves what I'm saying. You sometimes misunderstand what I'm saying and that's not necessarily your fault so don't take that as a criticism - maybe I didn't make my point clearly enough. But the proper response to any of my arguments is a direct response, which you gave above. You responded to it directly and that allowed me to clear up what I meant so what's above does move the debate along. And what I'm responding to right now doesn't move the debate along.

MindTrap028
August 5th, 2016, 11:20 AM
First off, let's nail down the competing claims (as I think they may have shifted throughout the debate which is equally both of our faults). The claims are:
1. Murder is objectively wrong
2. Murder is subjectively wrong.


Those are not the claims. They are
1) Murder is objectively wrong.
2) I imagine murder to be wrong.

The hidden assumptions are
In #1 -There are objective moral truths, and #1 is among them.

In #2 - There are no objective moral truths, and my imaginations are relevant.


No. The claim is basically that no external source of morality exists. That is no more dismissible than the claim that an external source of morality does exist.

BOTH claims forward something about the nature of morality itself and just aren't about "me".

No the claim as you put above "murder is subjectively wrong. Is the claim that is being dismissed and is dismissable.


If the subjective position is correct, it applies to EVERYONE in the world, not just the claimant. An accurate statement about the nature of humanity (especially something that was not know to be true until was shown to be correct) is not dismissible.
Self refuting claims are not relevant. I showed how the assumption is self refuting.
It can't be true because it is self refuting. At least not how it is described.


Support or retract that there are relevant mitigating factors.
You yourself used a mitigating factor in your response. Isn't that one sufficient?
specifically as follows...


I am referring to US states. And no, none have legalized murdering born children.
So imaginary lines on a map, and nationality make murdering born children o.k. or more acceptable?
IE is that a relevant factor governing behavior but nor ones moral position or not?
I agree with you that it is, but you just challenged me to provide something you immediately use. So, your confusing me.



But I asked you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that every state had outlawed abortion prior to Roe. "Many" is not "all" and therefore your "evidence", at this point anyway, fails for lack of support.
Go back.. read that post and look at the quoted link Portion right above what you quoted back to me.
That was a quote from the link. It says "all".
Now to my quote, I was referring to many laws... of the states. In that, I don't know if it was just a single law in each state, or if each state had many laws.
My confusing grammar, but the portion you are challenging is clearly in the quote, as you will see upon review.


There is absolutely no legal means to protect the million or so fetuses that will die this year (again, any legal victory is years away). So you are tolerating the killing of millions of unborn. I see no valid reason to think that what is tolerable now will be intolerable in the future.
Lack of imagination :)
you didn't actually counter what I said.


The only premise is that the law will not change. There is no premise that you can't write a blog. How about you write a blog to all of the women who are seeking to have an abortion that convinces them to not have an abortion. If you are successful, then no women will choose to have an abortion and you have succeeded in protecting the unborn with your blog.

So there you go. You have an option to take an action that, if successful, will save the unborn.

If you are going to argue against writing a blog because you don't think it would be successful in making any real difference, then it's an accepted premise that one must believe that an action will be successful before it is worth taking. And therefore before you can convince Frank to join you in armed resistance, you must show him that taking up arms would be successful.

Well, the law represents the idea that abortions are allowed. How do you make this a place where abortions are not allowed?
That is the moral affront being faced, not simply that we can stop abortions in some cases.


I'm sorry but you asked me what I would do if goons came for MY children. You made it about my own family which introduces an element that would significantly effect my decision but is not relevant to the debate at hand. But I think we can omit this factor by changing the scenario for goons coming for children that aren't my own. So let's say they came for my neighbors children instead and I don't know them well enough to have an emotional bond but of course still feel that those children should be protected.

But that feeling is at the heart of any true moral conviction.


So the fact that pro-lifers have not, with minor exceptions) taken up arms over the deaths of millions of fetuses over the past decades leads to only one of two possible conclusions.
1. They do not view fetuses as exactly the same as born children.
2. They would tolerate the murder of millions of born children if it were made legal to kill them just they have tolerated the death of millions of fetuses.

I would say common sense indicates 1 is accurate.
False dilemma. There are mitigating factors.
For example, #2 actually happens in real life with very little reaction. Due to the mitigating factor of mental disassociation.
or "out of sight out of mind". Look at the reaction people have when video of actual abortions are preformed. It's grotesque and people have a reaction.
Just like you or I would have an immediate reaction to watching a child be hacked up with a machete in front of us...yet, when we heart "20K people were killed in bla bla land".
We can go to work, eat lunch, and not give it a second thought.

Mitigating factor #1 seems to be clear and present.
Abortion is not "clear and present" to even some of the people who disagree with it.

This is at play to a very large extent in regards to abortion. People who are for abortion change their minds when they see a sonogram of their unborn. Why is that? Because it makes it real. Videos of abortions get people who were the day before against abortion, but not involved riled up why? Because it makes it present and clear in their minds.

-commentary-
You have said that it would be a hard sell. When to me there is really only 2 points. The first is that legal action is not going to work. (we are far from that point). The second is making it clear and present what is occurring across the street in that non descriptive building, where children are being hacked apart with machetes. (well, a scapulae, but you know, size relevant.)
When you ask why people are not currently acting, my answer is because #1 is not true yet, and #2 is not clear and present.


But then my point about the blog is not regarding hope springing eternal but just pointing out that there are other actions you can take. I didn't say that you would succeed in changing anything by writing a blog. So this kind of proves what I'm saying. You sometimes misunderstand what I'm saying and that's not necessarily your fault so don't take that as a criticism - maybe I didn't make my point clearly enough. But the proper response to any of my arguments is a direct response, which you gave above. You responded to it directly and that allowed me to clear up what I meant so what's above does move the debate along. And what I'm responding to right now doesn't move the debate along.
Your answer simply isn't valid until you can apply it to the situation.
Like your neighbors kids and goons.. Do you run to your blog? or run to action?
At some point stuff gets real, and that is the area I am talking about. It is only in the presence of that mitigating factor, that I think we agree on. namely clear and present.
If it is a kid a world away, you can blog, if it is the kids in our country but states away, you can blog, if it is your neighbor.. you may blog, if it is your own kids... you can't possibly blog and when it is you personally only a fool would blog.



Right. It's your opinion. I think sometimes you misunderstand my responses (which can happen to anyone). So really, this re-cap stuff is just a waste of time, debate-wise. You are basically just giving me your opinion which does not forward the debate.
Personal note here. For as long and as many people have debated here.. I am still working on a gracious way to bring a debate to some sort of close.
or else what.. we go 50 pages till one gives up? When I don't see any new points being made, or we start to go in that circle I am trying to learn to stop there. Point out the points, give as much credit to the opponent as I can, by recognizing at least the best points they have made.

So when I say your strongest point, yes it is my opinion, but it is also a reference to what you have said that has effected me the most. Personally, I would like to know what you think is my best point, even if you disagree with it.

mican333
August 6th, 2016, 06:40 AM
Those are not the claims. They are
1) Murder is objectively wrong.
2) I imagine murder to be wrong.

If you honestly want to compare objective morality to subjective morality, the initial claims need to be as similar as they can be. So to do that, the claims must be:

1) Murder is objectively wrong.
2) Murder is subjectively wrong.

If you want to bring "imagination" into the discussion as an unavoidable ramification of subjective morality, that's fair. But one ramification of the claim being dismissible does not make the entire claim dismissible. But we have to apply the same standards to both claims or we aren't analyzing them fairly.


The hidden assumptions are
In #1 -There are objective moral truths, and #1 is among them.

In #2 - There are no objective moral truths, and my imaginations are relevant.

There are MANY hidden assumptions amongst both of the claims. And since many of the claims for BOTH of them are of interest, neither are dismissible. The only way you can hold that the subjective position is dismissible is if you choose to not factor in the many interesting claims that stem from that position.

Just saying ONE hidden claim in the subjective position is dismissible does not mean that the claim itself is dismissible. At least one hidden claim in the objective position is dismissible as well. When one says "murder is objectively wrong" a hidden claim is that this person personally agrees that murder is objectively wrong. But since we agree that personal thoughts are dismissible, that particular hidden claim is dismissible. But that doesn't mean the whole claim is dismissible. And the same goes the subjective claim.


No the claim as you put above "murder is subjectively wrong. Is the claim that is being dismissed and is dismissable.

I never said the claim "I imagine that murder is wrong" is not dismissible. I'm comparing subjective morality vs. objective morality and hold that as long as you hold both sides to the same standards when a person says "murder is wrong", they are equally of interest or equally dismissible.



So imaginary lines on a map, and nationality make murdering born children o.k. or more acceptable?
IE is that a relevant factor governing behavior but nor ones moral position or not?
I agree with you that it is, but you just challenged me to provide something you immediately use. So, your confusing me.

We are talking about behavior - basically what people will tolerate and what they won't (what they will take up arms to prevent).

In the US, people will not allow born children to be murdered within their own country. As evidence, we have uniforms laws banning this.

Since the debate is about US law (we are talking about abortion laws in the US), it is not arbitrary to limit the debate to within the US.




Go back.. read that post and look at the quoted link Portion right above what you quoted back to me.
That was a quote from the link. It says "all".
Now to my quote, I was referring to many laws... of the states. In that, I don't know if it was just a single law in each state, or if each state had many laws.
My confusing grammar, but the portion you are challenging is clearly in the quote, as you will see upon review.

I missed that. But the article does not say that abortion was illegal until Roe vs. Wade. It said "all states had laws criminalizing abortions, and these laws stayed intact until the 1960s and 1970s." Before Roe, some states had legalized abortion. In support:

"By the early 1970s, 20 states have passed abortion reform or repeal laws. Hawaii, Alaska, New York and Washington state have legalized abortion."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/22/health/roe-wade-abortion-timeline/index.html




Well, the law represents the idea that abortions are allowed. How do you make this a place where abortions are not allowed?
That is the moral affront being faced, not simply that we can stop abortions in some cases.

I don't think this addresses my argument at all.

My point is writing a blog attempting to get women not have abortions is an action that attempts to stop abortions. So the notion that taking up arms is the ONLY action one can take is clearly not true. You can take other actions. Again, you can write a blog.

So I will consider the argument that the only thing one can do once the legal recourse is gone is to take up arms to be successfully rebutted. I have shown you another action you can take.




False dilemma. There are mitigating factors. For example, #2 actually happens in real life with very little reaction. Due to the mitigating factor of mental disassociation.

Since we are talking about US law and society, we likewise comparing fetuses and children within the US. I agree that mental disassociation happens regarding children in other countries, but that is irrelevant to my point. So let me repeat my argument with "within the US" added to make it clear:

So the fact that pro-lifers have not, with minor exceptions) taken up arms over the deaths of millions of fetuses over the past decades leads to only one of two possible conclusions.
1. They do not view fetuses as exactly the same as born children within the US.
2. They would tolerate the murder of millions of born children if it were made legal within the US to kill them just they have tolerated the death of millions of fetuses.

I would say common sense indicates 1 is accurate.




You have said that it would be a hard sell. When to me there is really only 2 points. The first is that legal action is not going to work. (we are far from that point).

No, we are at that point right now. You said the goal is to protect unborn children. Unborn children are dying RIGHT NOW with no legal action available to save their lives.

I know that's not what you are referring to but my point still stands. If one truly believes that the unborn must be saved and violence is justified to protect them when the law will not, now is the time to act for millions of unborn are being killed and the law won't do anything to protect them. But of course almost no one seems to think that for armed action is rare and roundly discredited even from the pro-life side.


The second is making it clear and present what is occurring across the street in that non descriptive building, where children are being hacked apart with machetes. (well, a scapulae, but you know, size relevant.)
When you ask why people are not currently acting, my answer is because #1 is not true yet, and #2 is not clear and present.

I got news for you. Thousands of fetuses are being killed in those building RIGHT NOW.

So let me ask you. Why aren't you taking up arms to save those fetuses that will be killed tomorrow?

You can respond that you think that in the future the laws will change, but that won't save the millions of unborn that will die before the law is changed.

I think it's pretty clear that those will not take up arms to protect a million unborn now will not do it in the future for they clearly do not feel that these killings justify armed resistance.




Your answer simply isn't valid until you can apply it to the situation.
Like your neighbors kids and goons.. Do you run to your blog? or run to action?
At some point stuff gets real, and that is the area I am talking about. It is only in the presence of that mitigating factor, that I think we agree on. namely clear and present.
If it is a kid a world away, you can blog, if it is the kids in our country but states away, you can blog, if it is your neighbor.. you may blog, if it is your own kids... you can't possibly blog and when it is you personally only a fool would blog.

Correct. And that makes this analogy completely irrelevant to the debate at hand.

The scenario is that the legal recourse to outlaw abortion has ended. This doesn't personally effect you in any tangible way, unlike goons coming for your kids. The effects of realizing that you will never be able to end abortion legally is strictly internal - it effects what you think. But your children are just as safe as they were before you realized that abortion will never be outlawed.

My point with the blog really refers to you externally justifying taking up arms. Again, you said taking up arms is the only option. My response is that there are many other options and settled on writing a blog as an alternative to taking up arms. So if you can externally justify taking up arms, you should be able to explain to someone, Frank, who agrees that violence can be justified to end abortion but must be convinced that violence will be effective (he won't commit violence if he doesn't think something good enough to justify the violence will happen) how taking up arms will result in a net positive. And so far you have not explained how taking up arms will actually help so you have externally justified taking up arms. So considering that Frank feels he must do something but can't see how violence will actually help stop abortion in any significant fashion, he'd be better off writing a blog. How effective it will be is certainly questionable but at least no one gets hurt.




Personal note here. For as long and as many people have debated here.. I am still working on a gracious way to bring a debate to some sort of close.

I can think of two ways.

1. Just say something along the lines of "Well, I think I'm done here. So you get the last word if you want it. Good debate!". I would just avoid the re-hashing or summing up of the debate.

2. Do not respond at all on the thread and send me a PM saying that you are leaving the debate. So basically you are giving me the last word which is fair if you leave the debate.



or else what.. we go 50 pages till one gives up? When I don't see any new points being made, or we start to go in that circle I am trying to learn to stop there.

But I think some of the points are resolvable. For example, I've pointed out that you would need to convince Frank that violence will be effective to externally justify taking up arms. This can be resolved three ways.

1. You provide Frank a plan on how violence can be effective.
2. You concede that you have no such plan, thus giving me that particular argument.

But you did neither so there is no resolution. But this can be resolved because the options for resolution are clear.



Point out the points, give as much credit to the opponent as I can, by recognizing at least the best points they have made.

So when I say your strongest point, yes it is my opinion, but it is also a reference to what you have said that has effected me the most. Personally, I would like to know what you think is my best point, even if you disagree with it.

Again, I don't think summing up and re-hashing the arguments at the end is a worthy thing to do, even if one seeks to be complimentary to one's argument. I do not want you to do that for me and I don't want to do it for you. So I won't. Do not take this as a personal slight - I disagree with the activity no matter who is doing it.

If I were to pay your debating a compliment on this thread, I would say that I think your etiquette has been very good. In past debate things have sometimes gotten heated and a little nasty at times. In this debate, I feel that you have been entirely respectful in your responses and I appreciate it.

And I'm perfectly happy to continue the debate but it looks like you are calling it. So I'll say so long for now but feel free to continue if you want.

And not to egg you on, but I should say that we've had the objective vs subjective claim debate more than once in the past and I'm guessing we will have it again one of these days. So instead of starting over again at a later date, how about we continue just this one (skip the abortion part). But anyway, up to you. If we start again later, that's fine.

MindTrap028
August 6th, 2016, 08:19 AM
* Scarps previous response*


Again, I don't think summing up and re-hashing the arguments at the end is a worthy thing to do, even if one seeks to be complimentary to one's argument. I do not want you to do that for me and I don't want to do it for you. So I won't. Do not take this as a personal slight - I disagree with the activity no matter who is doing it.

If I were to pay your debating a compliment on this thread, I would say that I think your etiquette has been very good. In past debate things have sometimes gotten heated and a little nasty at times. In this debate, I feel that you have been entirely respectful in your responses and I appreciate it.

And I'm perfectly happy to continue the debate but it looks like you are calling it. So I'll say so long for now but feel free to continue if you want.

And not to egg you on, but I should say that we've had the objective vs subjective claim debate more than once in the past and I'm guessing we will have it again one of these days. So instead of starting over again at a later date, how about we continue just this one (skip the abortion part). But anyway, up to you. If we start again later, that's fine.

Well your thoughts are appreciated, and I am working on tone as we do a bit of a reset.
Until next time then.. I'll let your last response stand. :)

Sigfried
August 9th, 2016, 07:34 PM
1) Do you agree that government (regardless of level) determines winners and losers?

It certainly influences them, sometimes weakly, sometimes very strongly. Determine might be too srong a word but I get your meaning and mostly agree.


2) A strong central government, at the cost of states autonomy, lends to a more pronounced set of winners and losers. At one extreme, if no central government existed, then there would be winners and losers within each of the 50 states.
-- You will argue that the losers still have local representation at the federal level. However, those representatives would be powerless in our two party system when the other party is in control. Whereas a weak central government allows winners and losers of all ideologies to co-exist, a strong central government allows for a rather narrow set of winners and very little mobility.

I mostly agree. I will say that the minority party is far from powerless. We've seen plenty of minority parites have an impact on majority party actions. Fairly often the minority can spoil a win by they majority in our system.


3) When one group is consistently a loser there will be strife and little willingness to compromise.
-- We see it today. When one party takes power, the other party digs in there heels to resist. Federal power is all that matters so the minority party will choose to obstruct rather than compromise. Since winning at the local level means very little, everyone fights for power at the top. We see it very clearly in our national politics where the two parties are unable to compromise. We see it every day as those who perceive themselves as losers behave in increasingly hostile and violent ways. What options do they really have if they wish to be heard.

But one group is not consistently the looser. Becuse of the nature of the two party system, they tend to move towards the political center to avoid succding too much ground. As a result they are both fairly moderate in possition and control tends to wander back and forth between them. A lack of comprimise and digging in tends to lead to defeat as where reaching across the isle tends to garner wins. Strife tends to happen out at the margines of society where radicals who can never win a center victory turn to other means of political expression.


4) The 14th amendment was passed by Congress about one year after the civil war and was a response to the ex-Confederate states passing laws which prevented blacks born to slaves from voting. The argument was that these blacks were not citizens since their parents were not born in the U.S. and were not considered citizens. Congress recognized that the black slaves were brought here against their will and that their children, born on U.S. soil, should be considered U.S. citizens. It was not part of the outcome of the civil war.

That is nonsense. Without the civil war the south would not be giving blacks citizenship. Destroying slavery and giving blacks citizensip was very much the outcome of the war. The Confederate states tried to weasel out of it and the government brought them to heel. You do have some idea of how challenging it is to get an ammendment passed right? You realize that what ended a year after the end of the war had to start well before that right? If you read the history of the 14th ammendment the debates on black citizenship and representation began before the war ended and legislation was in play shortly after the surrender. To say it was not part of the outcome of the civil war is mind boggling and in complete denial of the historical context.


It was a response to Southern states after the war had ended. The amendment, itself, was well intended. Congress did not intend to put an end to the concept of states rights.

THe moment they outlawed slavery, they put a giant boot to the neck of states rights. THose states wanted slavery more than just about anything, they went to war over it. They lost, and in doing so lost a good deal of their soverignty which was then codified in the constitution. Were states rights still preserved, slavery would have continued.


I would like to make a specific point here. I am not arguing for the abolishment of the U.S. government.

I never thought you were but happy to see that.


In your utopia, where a central government reigns supreme, there would never have been free states. There would never have been a civil war. The central government would have dictated that all states should permit slavery. We know this because without such a concession, the slave states would never have agreed to enter the union in the first place. The slave states agreed to a compromise, but if you wanted a central government that picked all the winners and losers, then a compromise could never have existed.

In my utopia there would be no government because people would all be kind and happy to compromise and work together for mutual benefit and no one would try to take undo advantage of anyone else by force or deception. Never going to happen, that's why it is a utopia. Instead we have a large enough cohort of assholes that we need to use force to stop people from taking undo advantage of their fellow man including killing, raping and enslaving them.

I don't have any great love for large central governments. I think the best government is the smallest one. But... and this is a big but, if those small governments foster opression or evil, then I think a larger more powerful one needs to take control and fix them. That done, it should step back and allow freedom to reign and locals to decide their own affairs. In our history, states were opressors enabling a great evil to take place contrary to all the notions of our declaration of indipendence and the founding of our nation. Since they showed no signs of doing it themselves, the only solution is to have a larger power do it.

Should we reach a state where all the states in the union were really big on making sure liberty and equality were avialable for all citizens, I'd be 100% for smaller federal judicial control and more rights for states. Mind you at that point the 14th ammendment would be moot anyway, states would alrady be respecting the rights enshrined there, and hopefully many more.


5) A strong central government has not broadened our liberties as you suggest. Whether it is the Patriot Act or court orders which prevent states from outlawing abortion, liberty has been curbed.

The patriot act has done almost nothing to actually deny me any liberties. I don't like it, but it is small potatoes compared to slavery and all the laws that states had after that. It's not even as opressive as your typical sodomy law. As for abortion, I don't think dictating to people whether they have children or not is a liberty. Preventing states from imposing their moral values on women is an increase of liberty for the people, not an abridgement of it.


What is liberty if I cannot live my life per my moral convictions?

If yoru moral conviction is to make life **** for other people, that is a liberty that destroyes other liberties and thus no liberty at all. You can and should live your life as you think is moral, dictating your morality to others is what you don't get to do.


Is it religious freedom when a church must offer information on abortion options to its employees?

Yes, because churches are not the masters of their employees. The owners of the church should not be allowed to dictate to workers what their morality should be. They can do that to their parishiners all they like, but not people they happen to hire.


Is it free speech when a shop keeper is forced to bake a cake for a homosexual couple?

No. In fact no one is forced to make cakes for anyone. But any asshole who refuses to offer services to someone out of some moral code that says they are better people than someone else is already a fan of opression and control so I feel no sympathy for them what so ever. If they truly loved freedom they would allow others the freedom to make their own moral choices and keep the hell out of it.

Becides, there is no federal law forcing anyone to make cakes for anyone else.


I get that stomping on perceived bigotry makes lots of people feel good and righteous. However, to confuse this as some sort of enligtened liberty is merely kidding ourselves. We have merely replaced one bigotry with another. Heaped one intolerance over another.

No we havn't. Bigotry is never freedom loving. It's like saying we need the freedom to keep slaves. That is counter productive to freedom. Ultimately freedom requires you have an opperator with monopoly of force to stop poeple from taking away the freedom of others. The fredom to opress is a freedom destroying act. Maximizing freedom requires folks to self regulate acts of opression. Failing to do that an authority must step in to protect osme people from others who would do them harm.


6) You asked what states prior to the civil war could have done to prevent the Patriot Act. Maybe, a better question would be; without the 16th amendment, could the U.S. government have ever enacted the Patriot Act? The 14th amendment was just the gateway for the federal government. The 16th amendment gave the U.S. government the means. So, prior to the civil war, there couldn't have been a Patriot Act because the states wouldn't have been likely to fund the federal government for such a program. And if such a program had been funded, it would have been temporary.


A moot argument. The challenge was a matter of whether states have the power to change federal law that falls inside federal jurisdiction. They don't. The federal government can and did have laws and programs prior to hacing access to income tax.


7) You have this odd and irrational fear that people are unable to govern themselves without some big powerful daddy figure keeping them in check. I am much more worried about the federal government picking winners and losers than my local government.

Not fear, evidence. The southern states as a demonstrable fact held people in slavery. As a demonstrable fact we have spent decades rolling back their attempts to marignalize their black citizens or any group not in the majority. I fear states rights because I've seen what those calling for it consistently want to do with such power. Meanwhile while I hae issue with some federal actions, by and large I see that insturment of power used to protect people rather than attack them. Were the rolls reversed, I'd be all for states rights in the present world.

I think smaller government is better, but I think that if it doesn't behave itself, it needs to get overruled.

Ibelsd
August 11th, 2016, 04:12 PM
It certainly influences them, sometimes weakly, sometimes very strongly. Determine might be too srong a word but I get your meaning and mostly agree.



I mostly agree. I will say that the minority party is far from powerless. We've seen plenty of minority parites have an impact on majority party actions. Fairly often the minority can spoil a win by they majority in our system.



But one group is not consistently the looser. Becuse of the nature of the two party system, they tend to move towards the political center to avoid succding too much ground. As a result they are both fairly moderate in possition and control tends to wander back and forth between them. A lack of comprimise and digging in tends to lead to defeat as where reaching across the isle tends to garner wins. Strife tends to happen out at the margines of society where radicals who can never win a center victory turn to other means of political expression.



That is nonsense. Without the civil war the south would not be giving blacks citizenship. Destroying slavery and giving blacks citizensip was very much the outcome of the war. The Confederate states tried to weasel out of it and the government brought them to heel. You do have some idea of how challenging it is to get an ammendment passed right? You realize that what ended a year after the end of the war had to start well before that right? If you read the history of the 14th ammendment the debates on black citizenship and representation began before the war ended and legislation was in play shortly after the surrender. To say it was not part of the outcome of the civil war is mind boggling and in complete denial of the historical context.


THe moment they outlawed slavery, they put a giant boot to the neck of states rights. THose states wanted slavery more than just about anything, they went to war over it. They lost, and in doing so lost a good deal of their soverignty which was then codified in the constitution. Were states rights still preserved, slavery would have continued.



I never thought you were but happy to see that.



In my utopia there would be no government because people would all be kind and happy to compromise and work together for mutual benefit and no one would try to take undo advantage of anyone else by force or deception. Never going to happen, that's why it is a utopia. Instead we have a large enough cohort of assholes that we need to use force to stop people from taking undo advantage of their fellow man including killing, raping and enslaving them.

I don't have any great love for large central governments. I think the best government is the smallest one. But... and this is a big but, if those small governments foster opression or evil, then I think a larger more powerful one needs to take control and fix them. That done, it should step back and allow freedom to reign and locals to decide their own affairs. In our history, states were opressors enabling a great evil to take place contrary to all the notions of our declaration of indipendence and the founding of our nation. Since they showed no signs of doing it themselves, the only solution is to have a larger power do it.

Should we reach a state where all the states in the union were really big on making sure liberty and equality were avialable for all citizens, I'd be 100% for smaller federal judicial control and more rights for states. Mind you at that point the 14th ammendment would be moot anyway, states would alrady be respecting the rights enshrined there, and hopefully many more.



The patriot act has done almost nothing to actually deny me any liberties. I don't like it, but it is small potatoes compared to slavery and all the laws that states had after that. It's not even as opressive as your typical sodomy law. As for abortion, I don't think dictating to people whether they have children or not is a liberty. Preventing states from imposing their moral values on women is an increase of liberty for the people, not an abridgement of it.



If yoru moral conviction is to make life **** for other people, that is a liberty that destroyes other liberties and thus no liberty at all. You can and should live your life as you think is moral, dictating your morality to others is what you don't get to do.



Yes, because churches are not the masters of their employees. The owners of the church should not be allowed to dictate to workers what their morality should be. They can do that to their parishiners all they like, but not people they happen to hire.



No. In fact no one is forced to make cakes for anyone. But any asshole who refuses to offer services to someone out of some moral code that says they are better people than someone else is already a fan of opression and control so I feel no sympathy for them what so ever. If they truly loved freedom they would allow others the freedom to make their own moral choices and keep the hell out of it.

Becides, there is no federal law forcing anyone to make cakes for anyone else.



No we havn't. Bigotry is never freedom loving. It's like saying we need the freedom to keep slaves. That is counter productive to freedom. Ultimately freedom requires you have an opperator with monopoly of force to stop poeple from taking away the freedom of others. The fredom to opress is a freedom destroying act. Maximizing freedom requires folks to self regulate acts of opression. Failing to do that an authority must step in to protect osme people from others who would do them harm.


A moot argument. The challenge was a matter of whether states have the power to change federal law that falls inside federal jurisdiction. They don't. The federal government can and did have laws and programs prior to hacing access to income tax.



Not fear, evidence. The southern states as a demonstrable fact held people in slavery. As a demonstrable fact we have spent decades rolling back their attempts to marignalize their black citizens or any group not in the majority. I fear states rights because I've seen what those calling for it consistently want to do with such power. Meanwhile while I hae issue with some federal actions, by and large I see that insturment of power used to protect people rather than attack them. Were the rolls reversed, I'd be all for states rights in the present world.

I think smaller government is better, but I think that if it doesn't behave itself, it needs to get overruled.

Your argument is not following the logic. You generally agree that government has a say/influence in picking winners and losers. You strongly agreed to my premise that a strong central government results in a more pronounced set of winners and losers. It then follows that the people with the biggest voices (typically not moderates) gain the most influence and drive the parties towards greater extremes leading to an even more pronounced group of winners and losers. Again, the proof is in the pudding where the two parties have found little room to compromise. So, your rebuttal that the parties overlap and that winners and losers are spread out and cross over between issues becomes less and less accurate as the central government becomes larger and more powerful.

You fear states rights because you have this unrealistic expectation/belief that government can be benevolent. It has never been true in the past and is unlikely to be true in the future.

Sigfried
August 16th, 2016, 07:20 PM
Your argument is not following the logic.

Bolderdash sir.


You generally agree that government has a say/influence in picking winners and losers. You strongly agreed to my premise that a strong central government results in a more pronounced set of winners and losers.

So far so good.


It then follows that the people with the biggest voices (typically not moderates) gain the most influence and drive the parties towards greater extremes leading to an even more pronounced group of winners and losers.

No, that does not follow. Moderates often have substantial voices in american politics. Indeed it is the fringe radicals that tend to be the ones greatly marginalized and kept out of power.The major parties are coalitions of various views and by necessity compromise on possitions and then must work with the opposing parties in many cases to get legislation passed. Indeed any party moving in too radical a direction almost instantly looses power because you need about half the population to be with you or more with you than the other guys to keep power.

No, it follows that the smaller the election base selecting leaers, the more insular and radical the resulting goverments are likely to be because they represent a local homogenized culture which may vary radically from the overall national culture's middle ground.

If you have every tried to build concensus in groups you should know that the larger the group, the harder it is, and the more compromises must be made in the concensus action and possition.


Again, the proof is in the pudding where the two parties have found little room to compromise.

That is because each of them already represents a compromise possition of their constituents. Not because they are some how radicals or way off center of american politics.


So, your rebuttal that the parties overlap and that winners and losers are spread out and cross over between issues becomes less and less accurate as the central government becomes larger and more powerful.

Only in your imagination. The demonstrable truth of american politics is the two major parties roughly split the vote in the country most of the time and they move in and out of power frequently. Only in specific local areas does one party hold a strangle on the policy. That is what we see in the real world.


You fear states rights because you have this unrealistic expectation/belief that government can be benevolent. It has never been true in the past and is unlikely to be true in the future.

Government is largely benevolent in the US. It builds roads and bridges and schools and feeds people and defends us and teaches us and watches out for our health and ensures the laws that protect our rights and on and on. None of that is evil or mean or opressive. The biggest problems we have had is in the past and ever less so we decided only some people actually deserved the governments protection and service. We've been slowly correcting that problem since our founding. Many states would rather go back to that kind of situsation where they serve some of us and not others who they deem unworthy. I'm not in favor of that kind of discrimination. I think government should serve ALL the people as its purpose as established in the declaration of indipendence and pre-amble of the constitution is to serve the will and good of the people that constitute the nation.

Ibelsd
August 18th, 2016, 12:09 PM
I responded to your post yesterday, but it apparently didn't post. You will have to give me a little time to redo it as it was kinda lengthy.

Sigfried
August 18th, 2016, 04:20 PM
I responded to your post yesterday, but it apparently didn't post. You will have to give me a little time to redo it as it was kinda lengthy.

Sorry about that, alwasy sucks when it happens. Take all the time you like, I don't mind a slow debate. I spent a couple weeks (or felt like it) between my last response, wanted to be in the right mood for it.

Ibelsd
August 23rd, 2016, 12:06 PM
Bolderdash sir. Balderdash. Hehe...




No, that does not follow. Moderates often have substantial voices in american politics. Indeed it is the fringe radicals that tend to be the ones greatly marginalized and kept out of power.The major parties are coalitions of various views and by necessity compromise on possitions and then must work with the opposing parties in many cases to get legislation passed. Indeed any party moving in too radical a direction almost instantly looses power because you need about half the population to be with you or more with you than the other guys to keep power.


No, it follows that the smaller the election base selecting leaers, the more insular and radical the resulting goverments are likely to be because they represent a local homogenized culture which may vary radically from the overall national culture's middle groun

If you have every tried to build concensus in groups you should know that the larger the group, the harder it is, and the more compromises must be made in the concensus action and possition.



That is because each of them already represents a compromise possition of their constituents. Not because they are some how radicals or way off center of american politics.



Only in your imagination. The demonstrable truth of american politics is the two major parties roughly split the vote in the country most of the time and they move in and out of power frequently. Only in specific local areas does one party hold a strangle on the policy. That is what we see in the real world.



Government is largely benevolent in the US. It builds roads and bridges and schools and feeds people and defends us and teaches us and watches out for our health and ensures the laws that protect our rights and on and on. None of that is evil or mean or opressive. The biggest problems we have had is in the past and ever less so we decided only some people actually deserved the governments protection and service. We've been slowly correcting that problem since our founding. Many states would rather go back to that kind of situsation where they serve some of us and not others who they deem unworthy. I'm not in favor of that kind of discrimination. I think government should serve ALL the people as its purpose as established in the declaration of indipendence and pre-amble of the constitution is to serve the will and good of the people that constitute the nation.

Government, rather the people who run the government are just people. They are not benevolent nor righteous. Just like most people, if you stick a hundred dollar bill in their face, they'll reach for it. The bottom line here is you agree, government picks winners and losers and the difference is more pronounced the higher up the government totem pole we go. In a free country, why do we allow winners and losers to be selected by Washington bureaucrats? It is not even just elected politicians. Congress has given agencies like the EPA the power to create and enforce regulations. No one votes on them. Winners and losers are determined without oversight or direct representation from the people they are supposed to serve.

You define frequently differently than I do. 2-8 years is not frequent for a small business trying to figure out how it will compete. This is not frequent nor short for the average person trying to make a budget. These policies don't just end when one party leaves office. The mortgage policies during started in the Carter era didn't explode until decades later. The biggest problems we have had in this country is when we mistakenly assume the federal government can protect us from ourselves. The Vietnam War didn't occur because some local government made up some anti-gay law in a town of 5000 people. We didn't invade Iraq because some town decided to segregate its schools. The worst crimes in this nation have occurred because we have assumed government is benevolent.

We have to accept that people are different. Communities are different. Tolerance is not just about getting along. It is about accepting the existence of things we abhor. It is accepting that some town do not like Jews. Or another town does not welcome public displays of Christmas. Or another town wants everyone and everything on display. That's how a nation gets along. When there are places for everyone to call home, then there can be a home for everyone. We accept our differences and in important moments, we come together and defend this life of freedom. It is simply crazy to think we will let the federal government determine who must tolerate and whom must criminalize. It is not the function of a federal government in a republic. Not in this republic.

Sigfried
August 24th, 2016, 06:21 PM
Government, rather the people who run the government are just people. They are not benevolent nor righteous. Just like most people, if you stick a hundred dollar bill in their face, they'll reach for it.

Some of them are especially benevolent and righteous, others not. They are people, generally no better or worse than others. Elected officials are kind of by nature vainglorious to a degree. Others are pretty much just people doing a job like any other. By the people, of the people for the people. That is the principle of our government and that is pretty much what it is.


The bottom line here is you agree, government picks winners and losers and the difference is more pronounced the higher up the government totem pole we go. In a free country, why do we allow winners and losers to be selected by Washington bureaucrats? It is not even just elected politicians. Congress has given agencies like the EPA the power to create and enforce regulations. No one votes on them. Winners and losers are determined without oversight or direct representation from the people they are supposed to serve.

We allow it because it is practical, often desirable, and sometimes neccesary. You can't elect everyone in government, we'd never get anything done. Some folks just have jobs to do and they do them at the direction of the laws created by elected officials. They can and do get kicked out and changed when folks want to change those agencies because of election results. No one bitches about us not electing generals or their tenure in office. Some folks just need to be career members of some agency or another like any other business. If they go wrong they are subject to elected officials and thus indirectly voters.

The winners and loosers at the federal level are part of political issues that have wide reaching impacts. Caol producers for instance can be a source of significant polution which has far reaching effects. If the coal industry had no polution, well no one would be making loosers of them. It is only because they have an important effect on a public good (air and climate) do they end up under the microscope. Its a "Tragedy of the Commons" type problem. Individual objectives say "polute as much as you like" and let someone else deal with the problems while you reap all the rewards. Eventually you ruin far more in the economy than you produce. You are still better off, but the society is much worse off. So to resolve these issues we make life harder for Coal producers and consumers to try and tamp down on the commons problem and keep the air clean. Society creates a looser out of coal so the rest of us can breathe clean air and be winners. It is a matter of justice. It is unjust to polute the air unless you pay for that polution somehow.


You define frequently differently than I do. 2-8 years is not frequent for a small business trying to figure out how it will compete.


It's not like local government is any faster. Indeed local offices are often held for a very very long time. Due to term limits the presidency has pretty high turn over. Cogress not so much but they are elected.... wait for it... localy at the state level. Really the president is the only nationally elected office.


These policies don't just end when one party leaves office. The mortgage policies during started in the Carter era didn't explode until decades later. The biggest problems we have had in this country is when we mistakenly assume the federal government can protect us from ourselves. The Vietnam War didn't occur because some local government made up some anti-gay law in a town of 5000 people. We didn't invade Iraq because some town decided to segregate its schools. The worst crimes in this nation have occurred because we have assumed government is benevolent.

Iraq and Veitnam were both (when initiated) popular with the American public. The government didn't make those decisions for us, they were made with good understanding that it was what people wanted at the time. Americans can be pretty stupid sometimes you know. Again, its by for and of the people. We choose these governments, we support these governments, and we influence these governments. Its done in masse, not each indicidual getting what they want, but we make the choices and those choices have consiquences. Americans hardly ever vote for anyone seen as weak or passive or peaceful. We just don't like it for the most part. We like tough hard fighting bastards who kick our enemies in the teeth. I don't really but that's still what most of America wants so that is what America gets.


We have to accept that people are different. Communities are different. Tolerance is not just about getting along. It is about accepting the existence of things we abhor. It is accepting that some town do not like Jews. Or another town does not welcome public displays of Christmas.

America is about liberty for the individual, about natural rights endowed by our creator, about government that serves the people, all the people, not just some of the people. Hating jews and legislating chrismass is not acceptable for ANY American community. The bill of rights are a central unifying document that establishes the rights of every single American which so long as they are not trampling on the rights of others, they are entitled to and no local community is empowered to take them away.

There are a great many things local communities can and should legislate and make decisions about, but none of those things should violate any American citizens rights. I will not bend on this. I do not think local communities should be allowed to discriminate and deprive people of their rights. Nor should the federal government, nor should any government. Government, all government, should instead strive and work to ensure and protect these rights.

Difference are great, but for there to be free differnces individuals must have basic rights to express their individual character.

bestellen
April 29th, 2017, 07:30 AM
The way you are laying out the power of the const, namely to trump the states, this appears to be the logical consequence.

ianz123
October 20th, 2017, 08:08 AM
2nd ammendment didn't do right thing imo! We need to take off weapons.

Squatch347
October 23rd, 2017, 05:10 AM
2nd ammendment didn't do right thing imo! We need to take off weapons.

I'm curious why you think this is the case. If we "take off weapons" we should just delete the amendment right? That seems odd given that the context of the Amendment was the removal of weapons from individuals (including cannons) by a government attempting to suppress native democratic processes.

Do you think that individuals have no inherent right to self defense with weapons?