Context of the second ammendment

[mican333]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.