Fair enough. Then, since all men are created equal, no man is created free, right? So, what you're saying is that Ron Paul is fighting against God's plan.
I always understood it to mean that Free men have the ability to work and earn what they want in life. They have the freedom to go out and do what they need to do (without causing harm) to get what they want and achieve their goals. They can earn money, posessions, status, and that makes a free man not directly comparable or equal with another free man. One might start out dirt poor make good choices and make himself rich, own a mansion and all that. Another might start with that but make poor choices and squander it all down the road, and every position in between those two.
Equal men on the other hand, are given no choice. They all are given the exact same thing from birth to death in life and have no ability to earn anything for themselves despite their actions. All men have the same situation so they are equal, but they are not free to pursue or achieve their goals no matter what they are.
Does this remind anyone else of the explanation for Newspeak in 1984? Where the notion of 'all men are created equal' would be rendered nonsensical suggesting that we're all 5'11" with brown hair.
Fair enough. Then, since all men are created equal, no man is created free, right? So, what you're saying is that Ron Paul is fighting against God's plan.
I always understood it to mean that Free men have the ability to work and earn what they want in life. They have the freedom to go out and do what they need to do (without causing harm) to get what they want and achieve their goals. They can earn money, posessions, status, and that makes a free man not directly comparable or equal with another free man. One might start out dirt poor make good choices and make himself rich, own a mansion and all that. Another might start with that but make poor choices and squander it all down the road, and every position in between those two.
Equal men on the other hand, are given no choice. They all are given the exact same thing from birth to death in life and have no ability to earn anything for themselves despite their actions. All men have the same situation so they are equal, but they are not free to pursue or achieve their goals no matter what they are.
Fucking hell, do we need to explain the different between positive and negative freedoms again?
This post also clearly shows that you have no idea what the differences are between socialist, communist, and authoritarian policies. Not everyone in this country is born equal, buddy, and some still don't even have the luxury of equity before the law - that's why we need a nice helping of socialism to help keep/make things better.
Hm. Ron Paul is almost as frightening to me as Rudy Giuliani re: his views on stuff. He seems almost exactly like Pat Buchanan.
As frightening as a random street preacher. They both have the same chance of being president.
The fear isn't Ron Paul as president.
The fear is Ron Paul helping another generation of college students justify their asshole attitudes as the pinnacle of objective reason and patriotism, who will whine about how we would be in a utopia with no FEMA and a fair tax if only the MSM conspiracy hadn't conspired against him.
Fucking hell, do we need to explain the different between positive and negative freedoms again?
This post also clearly shows that you have no idea what the differences are between socialist, communist, and authoritarian policies. Not everyone in this country is born equal, buddy, and some still don't even have the luxury of equity before the law - that's why we need a nice helping of socialism to help keep/make things better.
This, of course, is one of the fundamental differences between libertarianism and socialism. A libertarian believes government is the cause of most of our problems. A socialist thinks it is the solution.
Fucking hell, do we need to explain the different between positive and negative freedoms again?
This post also clearly shows that you have no idea what the differences are between socialist, communist, and authoritarian policies. Not everyone in this country is born equal, buddy, and some still don't even have the luxury of equity before the law - that's why we need a nice helping of socialism to help keep/make things better.
This, of course, is one of the fundamental differences between libertarianism and socialism. A libertarian believes government is the cause of most of our problems. A socialist thinks it is the solution.
I like having Workman's Compensation and safety regulations.
Do you really want unions to come back.
The railroad tycoons are dead, dude, get over yourself.
Fucking hell, do we need to explain the different between positive and negative freedoms again?
This post also clearly shows that you have no idea what the differences are between socialist, communist, and authoritarian policies. Not everyone in this country is born equal, buddy, and some still don't even have the luxury of equity before the law - that's why we need a nice helping of socialism to help keep/make things better.
This, of course, is one of the fundamental differences between libertarianism and socialism. A libertarian believes government is the cause of most of our problems. A socialist thinks it is the solution.
Yeah. Just like I suppose there is a fundamental difference between between a christian fundie and a satanist. A christian fundie believes that we should have a strict adherence to whatever Jerry Falwell tells them is the definitive interpretation of the bible, where as a Satan believes that we should lead an army of fallen angels in order to challenge god's throne.
The thing is, you don't see many true satanists in the real world, where as you do see a lot of Christian fundies. And just because the Christian fundies might thing that everyone in the mainstream is tainted by Satan, doesn't mean that those people are.
The basic problem with your line of thinking is that making a constitutional amendment is hard. Despite what the majority, or even the supermajority, or people think about what our general laws should be, there are many, many ways for minorities to torpedo that.
I'd think if the need was really that pressing, it should be possible. The language would need to be hand picked very carefully but it should pass. Yes it is hard, and it was intended because of the fear that one day government might get out of control. It's a decision we all have to make. On one hand we have freedom but more problems we have to work our ourselves, on the other we have less problems to think about but less ability to do things for ourselves and less convenience at times. It's about what you think is more important, my personal belief is that liberty and freedom outweigh security and convenience.
Think about it: you need a supermajority in the House and Senate, so if you have a clear 50-50 to 40-60ish split there (which we tend to), that's going to take some serious compromising already. Then it needs to be ratified by the states, who ALSO need a supermajority. So if, say, the South bands together against the amendment, that amendment is dead in the water.
So why not again, make a carefully worded ammendment to make ammendment passing easier or something similar?
Amendments are [i[hard[/i], if not impossible to pass. They can take decades (and in the case of the 27th amendment, centuries) before making it through the system. Discounting the 27th amendment, we haven't passed one in 40 years. And the thing is, they're designed to be this way: the Founding Fathers meant for the Constitution to be a rather immutable document, which is good in some ways because of how it protects the rights of the minority. But it can also be bad, because it is rather maladaptive, which makes it harder when, say, we need laws protecting equal rights.
Then we have to make the document more versatile if there's a pressing need. There is a way, it might take a while at first but long term benefits would be worth it would they not? I keep saying we can't just be short sighted at how we approach these things, we have to think about the long term.
"Signing a new social contract" is unnecessary; you sign one simply by living in this country and voting in an election. Trying to tie everything back to the Constitution is also unnecessary, because history has evolved and the law along with it. If you try to turn back the clock on the law when you can't turn back the clock on history, you'll be in for some ugly surprises.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your whole argument is essentially: It's not realistic to ammend the constitution, and times are changing so fast and we need changes so fast so we should just ignore it when it suits us? If that's the case we'll have to agree to disagree, because I cannot support the idea we should just let the government choose to disregard things when we think it's for the best, that's a gateway to bad laws and policies, of which we already have far too many.
Fucking hell, do we need to explain the different between positive and negative freedoms again?
This post also clearly shows that you have no idea what the differences are between socialist, communist, and authoritarian policies. Not everyone in this country is born equal, buddy, and some still don't even have the luxury of equity before the law - that's why we need a nice helping of socialism to help keep/make things better.
I actually read that part of the thread (the start) and disagreed heavily with what I read. It seemed to mainly be a misnomer for entitlements. We should have the freedom to pursue this or pursue that, but saying something like "you have the freedom to get an education" to me sounds more like "You should be entitled to a compulsory education at the taxpayer's expense." to me. That is not freedom, that is asking government to give you something.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
This, of course, is one of the fundamental differences between libertarianism and socialism. A libertarian believes government is the cause of most of our problems. A socialist thinks it is the solution.
Not really.
A socialist believes that the equitable distribution of the means of production, and equality before the law is the solution to our problems. An anarchist believes that the government and centralized law systems are the cause of most our problems.
A libertarian just believes that he should have the right to do whatever he wants without government hindrance while the government keeps his life/property safe from everyone else.
Hm. Ron Paul is almost as frightening to me as Rudy Giuliani re: his views on stuff. He seems almost exactly like Pat Buchanan.
As frightening as a random street preacher. They both have the same chance of being president.
Hence my narrow concern.
I just wish some zeitgeists would turn over. Anti-globalization, anti-immigration, nutty nationalism, bad economics, all that shit, it's tired and useless. Paul is the embodiment of a ton of stuff that just doesn't make any fucking sense, and it's sad that he's as popular as he is.
Do you get the words that are coming out of my mouth? We don't pass amendments because we aren't clever enough, or because the amendments aren't worded carefully enough. We don't pass them because they are designed to be nearly impossible to pass. Passing an amendment to make passing amendments easier to pass is both ignorant of the problem/process - in other words, it will never happen - and ignorant of the Constitution itself, because the Constitution is meant to enumerate our system of government and our system of law, but not the law itself.
So yes, my argument distills down to this: the Constitution doesn't, and can't, change with the times. It did, however, create a system of government that CAN. Ignoring the well-established systems that we have for creating and enforcing law, in favor of going back to a document that was designed for a society that existed 200 years ago, is pure IDIOCY. It ignores decades and decades or precedent, and precedent/custom is what defines our law - NOT the Constitution. WE create the laws, not the Constitution.
I actually read that part of the thread (the start) and disagreed heavily with what I read. It seemed to mainly be a misnomer for entitlements. We should have the freedom to pursue this or pursue that, but saying something like "you have the freedom to get an education" to me sounds more like "You should be entitled to a compulsory education at the taxpayer's expense." to me. That is not freedom, that is asking government to give you something.
So the freedom to have a job is an "entitlement?" To have a well-supported family? To live a life without disease or illness?
If you don't think those "count" as freedoms that should be protected, then frankly you can go right to hell. Whatever happened to the pursuit of happiness?
I'm tired of arguing this, and it's late here anyway. I'm going to bed
Do you get the words that are coming out of my mouth? We don't pass amendments because we aren't clever enough, or because the amendments aren't worded carefully enough. We don't pass them because they are designed to be nearly impossible to pass. Passing an amendment to make passing amendments easier to pass is both ignorant of the problem/process - in other words, it will never happen - and ignorant of the Constitution itself, because the Constitution is meant to enumerate our system of government and our system of law, but not the law itself.
If anything I'd wonder if it's at least in part due to this attitude that amendments aren't passed. Are they really fucking hard to pass? damn straight, it's supposed to be that way by design. Why? Because when we founded this government we didn't want it to get as big or powerful as it is today. We didn't want nor do we still need big government like we have right now. There were good things that came out of this yes, and it'd be suicidally moronic to just cut programs left and right. but we do need a gradual change and regression to lower levels of government and especially the constitution, for reasons below.
So yes, my argument distills down to this: the Constitution doesn't, and can't, change with the times. It did, however, create a system of government that CAN. Ignoring the well-established systems that we have for creating and enforcing law, in favor of going back to a document that was designed for a society that existed 200 years ago, is pure IDIOCY. It ignores decades and decades or precedent, and precedent/custom is what defines our law - NOT the Constitution. WE create the laws, not the Constitution.
So we should just throw it out and abandon any sort of structure for government? That seems flat out suicidal. Look at where things are going right now. We're losing rights left and right, the big two parties for the most part want to keep that going in their own areas, and the only guy who's actually telling us a lot of what's wrong is so insane about how we should fix it he's being totally ignored despite anything else.
We cannot allow government to exist without limits and let it do whatever it wants just because it's popular or because certain people deem it's necessary. That's leaving the door wide open for us to slowly but surely slide into an authoritarian state. Does it mean it will right now? No, does it mean it will five years from now? No, but if you leave the door wide open like that, eventually someone can and WILL walk through it. It may be a long way off but that's why I keep talking about needing some real foresight here. The reason we created things like they were and made things so immutable in areas was because we understood human nature, which has changed very little over time. People want power, good people can be corrupted by too much power, and if left without proper checks and balances a state will slowly slide into tyranny over time. Either we need a brand new social contract or we need to amend the constitution, to do otherwise is far too risky long term despite short term gains.
So like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree.
So the freedom to have a job is an "entitlement?" To have a well-supported family? To live a life without disease or illness?
If you don't think those "count" as freedoms that should be protected, then frankly you can go right to hell. Whatever happened to the pursuit of happiness?
I'm tired of arguing this, and it's late here anyway. I'm going to bed
We'll have to agree to disagree here too, I can't say I favor too much of anything socialistic.
Personally:
I'm a big believer in capitalism, I think it works really well. It's sort of like an online multi-player game on the PC. It works you just have to work to prevent the players (companies) from cheating (like forming monopolies or trusts to collude exclusive control of markets). As long as you can make sure everyone's competing equally on good terms it can work wonders, like a well organized game of BF2 the real trick is making sure in the right way everyone's competing. If they aren't, you get a frustrating game of counter-strike with wallhack/auto-aim using cheaters calling you a n00b.
You should be free to look for and apply at any job you want, and they should be free to reject you if you do not have the necessary qualifications or references they require.
Requiring they hire you is entitlement
Requiring that they ignore things irrelevant to your actual job performance or their company image (such as race, gender and sexual orientation) is meddling but I believe it's necessary meddling that needs a proper mandate. Affirmative action though, is entitlement and as of today I believe very unnecessary (it worked at first because it was needed as a tool to reverse social conceptions, once those are mostly done away with, the tool becomes unnecessary and at times counter productive.)
You should be free to work at any job you wish to support your family as well as you are capable of.
Minimum wage is entitlement but I do believe it is to an extent necessary, but it also needs to be more carefully looked at than it is now. Granted out here state minimum wage is way over federal so I can't really talk too much about federal but over here businesses in the lower end often use minimum wage increases to function as pay cuts since they don't have to increase wages if they're already above minimum wage but everyone can increase prices, fucking you over.
You should be free to pursue doctors, methods and practices to improve your health.
Free health care is entitlement and as of yet I have am not sure if it truly will bring about anything good enough to outweigh the cons I've heard, since it can actually reduce your choice.
Pursuit of happiness? We're free to pursue it all we want, will we ever achieve it? That depends on who where, when and what they're doing. Should the government just hand you your happiness on a silver platter? No, that's entitlement and that's making everyone else pay for something you want. We have to ask if something's really truly necessary to continue functioning soundly as a nation. The reason I so disagree with these two issues is that I believe we can't just give people everything they want, there are some sad stories out there and yes it's heartbreaking but we can't make government out to solve everyone's problems all the time and especially not by using emotional sob stories as justifications. It won't work and the worst part is these ideas of a boundless government and giving people whatever they want even if it may not be prudent or necessary or sane worry me. Stop thinking about now and only now to five years from now, start thinking ahead, start looking for loopholes and ways this can be exploited. This is why I believe in limited government, the best way to stop bad government intervention is to limit or stop government intervention.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
I think Seth Finklestein summed it up best in this:
Oh, for an honest Libertarian who would say "Yes, in Libertopia we'd have rampant quackery, organ-seizure, baby-selling, slavery in all but name - BUT THAT'S FREEDOM!"
If anything I'd wonder if it's at least in part due to this attitude that amendments aren't passed. Are they really fucking hard to pass? damn straight, it's supposed to be that way by design. Why? Because when we founded this government we didn't want it to get as big or powerful as it is today.
If that were the case, then why give congress the power to pass laws? Did they expect for the government to get smaller? Even in the face of a growing population?
Could any of the founding fathers have imagined the world we live in today? If not, then how in the world would they be able to guesstimate the appropriate size, much less communicate it in such a way that only modern day libertarians would be able to understand without the use of paper post mortum?
We didn't want nor do we still need big government like we have right now.
Who's "we"? Are you the local monarch now?
We cannot allow government to exist without limits and let it do whatever it wants just because it's popular or because certain people deem it's necessary. That's leaving the door wide open for us to slowly but surely slide into an authoritarian state. Does it mean it will right now? No, does it mean it will five years from now? No, but if you leave the door wide open like that, eventually someone can and WILL walk through it.
And someone can walk in easily if we do away with government and have a large power vacumn. In fact, they would probably be able to walk in a lot more easily than they can right now.
I'm a big believer in capitalism, I think it works really well. It's sort of like an online multi-player game on the PC. It works you just have to work to prevent the players (companies) from cheating (like forming monopolies or trusts to collude exclusive control of markets). As long as you can make sure everyone's competing equally on good terms it can work wonders, like a well organized game of BF2 the real trick is making sure in the right way everyone's competing. If they aren't, you get a frustrating game of counter-strike with wallhack/auto-aim using cheaters calling you a n00b.
So basically, libertopia will work as long as everyone is plugged into the matrix.
If that were the case, then why give congress the power to pass laws? Did they expect for the government to get smaller? Even in the face of a growing population?
Could any of the founding fathers have imagined the world we live in today? If not, then how in the world would they be able to guesstimate the appropriate size, much less communicate it in such a way that only modern day libertarians would be able to understand without the use of paper post mortum?
Government does need to grow and change as time passes, yes, but it needs to do so in a careful manner consistent with the social contract we signed when we formed our current union. What I cannot support is an ever growing state like we have now that's constantly encroaching our freedoms more and more as time passes and enacting more bureaucracy and getting farther and farther away from how we as a nation agreed to be governed.
I mean, what do we use as the basis for our government then if not the constitution? If you want to argue the constitution being outdated I'm going to have to ask. What do we do now? Governments are founded on social contracts between the governed and the state. The U.S. constitution is our contract, if it is outdated then what's the solution here? Do you recommend we amend it? Do we get a new contract? what?
And someone can walk in easily if we do away with government and have a large power vacumn. In fact, they would probably be able to walk in a lot more easily than they can right now.
Aren't we creating another sort of vacuum by abandoning our social contract without getting a new one? I'm not arguing to do away with all government, but to over time reduce it and get it back to smaller more sane terms, and to also get it back on track with the constitution.
So basically, libertopia will work as long as everyone is plugged into the matrix.
Unfortunately there have been certain anomalies, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden to sedulously avoid it, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. :P
I'm not saying corporations should run wild, obviously that's a bad idea, because in a game of greed the goal is to own everything and if that's possible for businesses the people lose (and the ultimate point of capitalism is to benefit society by coercing people to do what helps it the most.) Competition works in a lot of areas. I'm not going to argue we should say, cut out the OHSA, especially when I hardly know the exact particulars about everything it does and regulates.
That said, we have a regulation I think is really unnecessary, granted not all of it is federal. Things like banning smoking in businesses, or FCC decency codes. That said I do believe the name of the game is pretty much leveling the playing field. We also need to stop corporations from then turning around and then buying government laws that are just there to prop up old business models. We need government, but we need sane government and part of that is trying to make a government that focuses only on what really is necessary. Human nature doesn't change, power corrupts, and stupidity is rampant. The best way to curtail that is to limit government and especially to make sure it adheres to some sort of consistent framework that has a hard backing the people agree or have agreed upon, some sort of...I don't know, maybe a social contract?
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Treating the government like a fucking Wal-Mart sale isn't the smartest thing to do.
Firstly, for instance, the Department of Education is fairly important. Without such a federally regulated education standard, the value of education from state to state would vary so greatly it would be outrageously imbalanced. It's just not smart. Other federally funded and regulated departments and organizations are equally important. Privatization isn't the answer for everything, or very much at all.
That being said, I don't know who else I would vote for besides Ron Paul. These programs need reform, not abolishment, but I just don't see that any other candidate thinks even partially in the field of "Government is too strong." They view across just seems to be, "I've got the answer. I"ll do it right."
I may not agree with the specificities of his policies, but it's the essential philosophy of government he holds that I agree with. Government needs some kind of radical change. It's bad.
As per his economic policy, I had always understood that a hard-currency economic system was no better if not worse than our current fiat system. The Federal Reserve and IRS, however, I do believe can/should go. Not before cutting massive amounts of spending, waste and corruption (if ever), but eventually for sure.
Though maybe it's too much to hope for, that we'd close our 700+ military bases around the world. And god only knows what "more-perfect" system could ever eliminate political corruption... But if we could!
I should qualify that with Shinto's recommendation of Barack Obama. And indeed were I to vote for any other candidate, I've already decided I probably would vote for him.
But only because he's the best politician up there. He seems genuine. At least, he seems genuine.
But I happen to think the whole country is fairly fucked up. Once again, I'm far more ignorant that even I could conceive, but as I understood it, one of the few things that kept the American economy strong despite all of our debt was the fact that the US dollar was the standard for trading in oil. And that aid is in danger of slipping away.
Obama might be a great politician, I just feel, unless I'm totally wrong (and I'm only here to really test that and find out if I am), that we need more than better, we need radical.
This post also clearly shows that you have no idea what the differences are between socialist, communist, and authoritarian policies. Not everyone in this country is born equal, buddy, and some still don't even have the luxury of equity before the law - that's why we need a nice helping of socialism to help keep/make things better.
I actually read that part of the thread (the start) and disagreed heavily with what I read. It seemed to mainly be a misnomer for entitlements. We should have the freedom to pursue this or pursue that, but saying something like "you have the freedom to get an education" to me sounds more like "You should be entitled to a compulsory education at the taxpayer's expense." to me. That is not freedom, that is asking government to give you something.
An entitlement to a compulsory education at the taxpayer's expense is very possibly the single greatest thing our government has ever done to promote freedom, and far, far greater than the alternative. Like, no question.
Thanatos on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
I should qualify that with Shinto's recommendation of Barack Obama. And indeed were I to vote for any other candidate, I've already decided I probably would vote for him.
But only because he's the best politician up there. He seems genuine. At least, he seems genuine.
But I happen to think the whole country is fairly fucked up. Once again, I'm far more ignorant that even I could conceive, but as I understood it, one of the few things that kept the American economy strong despite all of our debt was the fact that the US dollar was the standard for trading in oil. And that aid is in danger of slipping away.
Obama might be a great politician, I just feel, unless I'm totally wrong (and I'm only here to really test that and find out if I am), that we need more than better, we need radical.
Ron Paul... eh, yeah.
Your libertarian logic is not like our Earth-logic.
What about just changing the way our money is regulated? I mean can we all agree that the fed system has a lot of problems at this point.
Oh yeah?
What are those?
Inflation has been extremely low for a long time. If oil prices weren't rising I doubt very much it would be cracking 2%.
I know this was a while ago but I went to eat. Anyway I was more thinking along the lines of changing the way we make/get our money so we don't have to pay taxes. I mean the income tax we currently was supposed to be a short term thing. Why has it become law to fork over about a quarter of your yearly income to the federal government.
Because it costs money to live in an industrial society. The roads and other infrastructure, the high levels of public education and health care, the cost of maintaining a decent standard of living for the elderly who can no longer work, inspections and standards for food and consumer products, administering the national parks and the agencies that monitor various aspects of the environment. That kind of thing.
I should qualify that with Shinto's recommendation of Barack Obama. And indeed were I to vote for any other candidate, I've already decided I probably would vote for him.
But only because he's the best politician up there. He seems genuine. At least, he seems genuine.
But I happen to think the whole country is fairly fucked up. Once again, I'm far more ignorant that even I could conceive, but as I understood it, one of the few things that kept the American economy strong despite all of our debt was the fact that the US dollar was the standard for trading in oil. And that aid is in danger of slipping away.
Obama might be a great politician, I just feel, unless I'm totally wrong (and I'm only here to really test that and find out if I am), that we need more than better, we need radical.
Ron Paul... eh, yeah.
Your libertarian logic is not like our Earth-logic.
Eh... I wasn't trying to sound like a tool or retard. Obama seems more honest about himself and his policies. In the very way he talks. It's almost as if he's talking to a crowd of people, instead of blank voting ballots.
But when he got in office, when any of them get in office for that matter, what actual guarantees do I have that they'll stick to what they said? Maybe not do exactly what they promised. It might just be unfortunately unrealistic, but what about trying for better alternatives? Obama was one, I believe, who said nothing was off the table with Iran. He pledged undying support of Israel. I should qualify that with that I'm not in favor of cutting support, but pledges like that end with multi-billion dollar arms deals for "balance," or something.
I'd be wholly surprised to learn that there wasn't a great deal more to the candidates than what I know right now. But, that's why I'm here.
An entitlement to a compulsory education at the taxpayer's expense is very possibly the single greatest thing our government has ever done to promote freedom, and far, far greater than the alternative. Like, no question.
How does that equal freedom though? You can argue for or against the current merits of government funded education, but it's an entitlement and not a freedom issue. I honestly think the whole "positive freedom thing" is an attempt to whitewash what's really just saying "government owes me this, they should give us that." Do we need certain things to function as a society? yes, but don't try to confuse people by calling it freedom.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
How does that equal freedom though? You can argue for or against the current merits of government funded education, but it's an entitlement and not a freedom issue. I honestly think the whole "positive freedom thing" is an attempt to whitewash what's really just saying "government owes me this, they should give us that." Do we need certain things to function as a society? yes, but don't try to confuse people by calling it freedom.
It means that people's productive potential shouldn't be artificially hemmed in by an accident of birth.
But I happen to think the whole country is fairly fucked up. Once again, I'm far more ignorant that even I could conceive, but as I understood it, one of the few things that kept the American economy strong despite all of our debt was the fact that the US dollar was the standard for trading in oil. And that aid is in danger of slipping away.
Our debt isn't all that excessive by international standards. Our economy is kept strong by the fact that we have strong college level education, lower taxes, an entrepreneurial ethic and a structure that encourages innovation.
What you should probably realize is that what the Paulites want to achieve is a very fundamental change in the government of the country. They want it because it accords well with their ideology of government.
The idea that our current system is about to colapse, that it isn't working well, that a very bad time is coming - this idea is necessary for them to justify why such a huge change should take place. It is an indispensible part of the landscape of their arguments. If it did not exist, they would have to create it.
In fact, they have created it. Nothing is on the verge of colapse. Essentially they've piggy backed on popular dissatisfaction about the way the country is being administered by an unpopular president in order to push their ideas.
It's kind of like this: A guy you know has a certain lifestyle. He goes to college and works part time. You think that education is bad, totally morally evil, and work is good. Your friend has a bad semester at school, so you try to convince him that not only is he getting C's, he is just wasting his time. He is going into catastrophic debt for nothing, the stress is ruining his health and his finances. If he stays on like he is he will probably end up bankrupt and homeless, living in a cardboard box. This is what Ron Paul is saying to America. The reality is that Ron Paul just thinks school is evil. Understand?
But I happen to think the whole country is fairly fucked up. Once again, I'm far more ignorant that even I could conceive, but as I understood it, one of the few things that kept the American economy strong despite all of our debt was the fact that the US dollar was the standard for trading in oil. And that aid is in danger of slipping away.
Our debt isn't all that excessive by international standards. Our economy is kept strong by the fact that we have strong college level education, lower taxes, an entrepreneurial ethic and a structure that encourages innovation.
What you should probably realize is that what the Paulites want to achieve is a very fundamental change in the government of the country. They want it because it accords well with their ideology of government.
The idea that our current system is about to colapse, that it isn't working well, that a very bad time is coming - this idea is necessary for them to justify why such a huge change should take place. It is an indispensible part of the landscape of their arguments. If it did not exist, they would have to create it.
In fact, they have created it. Nothing is on the verge of colapse. Essentially they've piggy backed on popular dissatisfaction about the way the country is being administered by an unpopular president in order to push their ideas.
It's kind of like this: A guy you know has a certain lifestyle. He goes to college and works part time. You think that education is bad, totally morally evil, and work is good. Your friend has a bad semester at school, so you try to convince him that not only is he getting C's, he is just wasting his time. He is going into catastrophic debt for nothing, the stress is ruining his health and his finances. If he stays on like he is he will probably end up bankrupt and homeless, living in a cardboard box. This is what Ron Paul is saying to America. The reality is that Ron Paul just thinks school is evil. Understand?
It means that people's productive potential shouldn't be artificially hemmed in by an accident of birth.
That still isn't freedom in my opinion, freedom is the ability to make a choice or take an action. Doesn't mean it's not a good thing but I still find the idea to be an attempt to make something sound better to people who don't understand what's being talked about.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
It means that people's productive potential shouldn't be artificially hemmed in by an accident of birth.
That still isn't freedom in my opinion, freedom is the ability to make a choice or take an action. Doesn't mean it's not a good thing but I still find the idea to be an attempt to make something sound better to people who don't understand what's being talked about.
Ah, you're a proponent of useless freedom.
Shinto on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
That still isn't freedom in my opinion, freedom is the ability to make a choice or take an action. Doesn't mean it's not a good thing but I still find the idea to be an attempt to make something sound better to people who don't understand what's being talked about.
Of course it's freedom: the freedom to maximise their personal potential. It's not an evil linguistic trick, dude: the word really does encompass concepts beyond what does/does not get the police to kick your door down.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Of course it's freedom: the freedom to maximise their personal potential. It's not an evil linguistic trick, dude: the word really does encompass concepts beyond what does/does not get the police to kick your door down.
1: the quality or state of being free: as a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another :independence c: the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care> d:ease, facility <spoke the language with freedom> e: the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with freedom> f: improper familiarity g: boldness of conception or execution h: unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>2 a: a political right b:franchise, privilege
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Yes, freedom is what the individual can do, not just what the government cannot.
That's what I've just been saying, that plus the idea that freedom is not asking to be given something. Sure it may be necessary, useful or nice, but I really can't agree that it's freedom.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
I feel like, of the wealth of literature on political philosophy, law, and social progress, this kid hasn't read anything but John Locke, Ben Franklin, George Orwell and Ayn Rand.
Once again, and with feeling:
1) The government isn't taking the form that "the people" don't want. If it is/does, then "the people" will vote for people to change the government to be the way they DO want it to be. It's that simple. Stop confusing your own views on government expansion and corruption with everyone elses.
2) No one, except perhaps your mother, signed a social contract for you. You continue to sign your social contract every day you live in this country and vote in its system of government. The social contract is not something that came into existence before you were born, but is continuous. This isn't original fucking sin, and you aren't living here or under this contract against your will.
3) The Constitution created a government, whose purpose was to create and administer laws. As with ANY government, this one has evolved beyond the ideas of the Constitution, while keeping its basic ideas at heart. The spirit of the Constitution does not necessary equal the spirit of the law, nor does it need to.
4) Many, many people can work extraordinarily hard and diligently, yet never progress beyond earning a minimum wage. They are not exceptional. Just because you were born on third base doesn't mean you hit a triple.
How is being free to solve any problems I might face in my life, myself, useless?
Which do you think is more useful, telling a handicapped kid in a wheelchair that he is free to stand up or getting him one of the Kamen wheelchairs that can go up and down stairs and elevate, allowing him to easily get in and out of bed, reach things on high shelves and negotiate minor obstacles better?
See, the problem with your ideology is that it is so obvious that the kid with a greater range of motion has more freedom to guide his life and effect his will. So you have to fall back into all kinds of elaborate theories about how the person providing him with the Kamen wheelchair is secretly plotting to enslave him.
Shinto on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
1: the quality or state of being free: as a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another :independence c:the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care> d:ease, facility <spoke the language with freedom> e: the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with freedom> f: improper familiarity g: boldness of conception or execution h: unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>2 a: a political right b:franchise, privilege
What we've been talking about fits very nicely under this rubric. Anyway, if you're going to rip out hunks from the dictionary and throw their bloody carcasses on the forum, would it hurt to digest them a bit more?
Posts
Does this remind anyone else of the explanation for Newspeak in 1984? Where the notion of 'all men are created equal' would be rendered nonsensical suggesting that we're all 5'11" with brown hair.
I'm just more equal than you.
Fucking hell, do we need to explain the different between positive and negative freedoms again?
This post also clearly shows that you have no idea what the differences are between socialist, communist, and authoritarian policies. Not everyone in this country is born equal, buddy, and some still don't even have the luxury of equity before the law - that's why we need a nice helping of socialism to help keep/make things better.
As frightening as a random street preacher. They both have the same chance of being president.
The fear isn't Ron Paul as president.
The fear is Ron Paul helping another generation of college students justify their asshole attitudes as the pinnacle of objective reason and patriotism, who will whine about how we would be in a utopia with no FEMA and a fair tax if only the MSM conspiracy hadn't conspired against him.
This, of course, is one of the fundamental differences between libertarianism and socialism. A libertarian believes government is the cause of most of our problems. A socialist thinks it is the solution.
Do you really want unions to come back.
The railroad tycoons are dead, dude, get over yourself.
Yeah. Just like I suppose there is a fundamental difference between between a christian fundie and a satanist. A christian fundie believes that we should have a strict adherence to whatever Jerry Falwell tells them is the definitive interpretation of the bible, where as a Satan believes that we should lead an army of fallen angels in order to challenge god's throne.
The thing is, you don't see many true satanists in the real world, where as you do see a lot of Christian fundies. And just because the Christian fundies might thing that everyone in the mainstream is tainted by Satan, doesn't mean that those people are.
I'd think if the need was really that pressing, it should be possible. The language would need to be hand picked very carefully but it should pass. Yes it is hard, and it was intended because of the fear that one day government might get out of control. It's a decision we all have to make. On one hand we have freedom but more problems we have to work our ourselves, on the other we have less problems to think about but less ability to do things for ourselves and less convenience at times. It's about what you think is more important, my personal belief is that liberty and freedom outweigh security and convenience.
So why not again, make a carefully worded ammendment to make ammendment passing easier or something similar?
Then we have to make the document more versatile if there's a pressing need. There is a way, it might take a while at first but long term benefits would be worth it would they not? I keep saying we can't just be short sighted at how we approach these things, we have to think about the long term.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your whole argument is essentially: It's not realistic to ammend the constitution, and times are changing so fast and we need changes so fast so we should just ignore it when it suits us? If that's the case we'll have to agree to disagree, because I cannot support the idea we should just let the government choose to disregard things when we think it's for the best, that's a gateway to bad laws and policies, of which we already have far too many.
I actually read that part of the thread (the start) and disagreed heavily with what I read. It seemed to mainly be a misnomer for entitlements. We should have the freedom to pursue this or pursue that, but saying something like "you have the freedom to get an education" to me sounds more like "You should be entitled to a compulsory education at the taxpayer's expense." to me. That is not freedom, that is asking government to give you something.
Not really.
A socialist believes that the equitable distribution of the means of production, and equality before the law is the solution to our problems. An anarchist believes that the government and centralized law systems are the cause of most our problems.
A libertarian just believes that he should have the right to do whatever he wants without government hindrance while the government keeps his life/property safe from everyone else.
Subtle difference.
Hence my narrow concern.
I just wish some zeitgeists would turn over. Anti-globalization, anti-immigration, nutty nationalism, bad economics, all that shit, it's tired and useless. Paul is the embodiment of a ton of stuff that just doesn't make any fucking sense, and it's sad that he's as popular as he is.
Do you get the words that are coming out of my mouth? We don't pass amendments because we aren't clever enough, or because the amendments aren't worded carefully enough. We don't pass them because they are designed to be nearly impossible to pass. Passing an amendment to make passing amendments easier to pass is both ignorant of the problem/process - in other words, it will never happen - and ignorant of the Constitution itself, because the Constitution is meant to enumerate our system of government and our system of law, but not the law itself.
So yes, my argument distills down to this: the Constitution doesn't, and can't, change with the times. It did, however, create a system of government that CAN. Ignoring the well-established systems that we have for creating and enforcing law, in favor of going back to a document that was designed for a society that existed 200 years ago, is pure IDIOCY. It ignores decades and decades or precedent, and precedent/custom is what defines our law - NOT the Constitution. WE create the laws, not the Constitution.
So the freedom to have a job is an "entitlement?" To have a well-supported family? To live a life without disease or illness?
If you don't think those "count" as freedoms that should be protected, then frankly you can go right to hell. Whatever happened to the pursuit of happiness?
I'm tired of arguing this, and it's late here anyway. I'm going to bed
If anything I'd wonder if it's at least in part due to this attitude that amendments aren't passed. Are they really fucking hard to pass? damn straight, it's supposed to be that way by design. Why? Because when we founded this government we didn't want it to get as big or powerful as it is today. We didn't want nor do we still need big government like we have right now. There were good things that came out of this yes, and it'd be suicidally moronic to just cut programs left and right. but we do need a gradual change and regression to lower levels of government and especially the constitution, for reasons below.
So we should just throw it out and abandon any sort of structure for government? That seems flat out suicidal. Look at where things are going right now. We're losing rights left and right, the big two parties for the most part want to keep that going in their own areas, and the only guy who's actually telling us a lot of what's wrong is so insane about how we should fix it he's being totally ignored despite anything else.
We cannot allow government to exist without limits and let it do whatever it wants just because it's popular or because certain people deem it's necessary. That's leaving the door wide open for us to slowly but surely slide into an authoritarian state. Does it mean it will right now? No, does it mean it will five years from now? No, but if you leave the door wide open like that, eventually someone can and WILL walk through it. It may be a long way off but that's why I keep talking about needing some real foresight here. The reason we created things like they were and made things so immutable in areas was because we understood human nature, which has changed very little over time. People want power, good people can be corrupted by too much power, and if left without proper checks and balances a state will slowly slide into tyranny over time. Either we need a brand new social contract or we need to amend the constitution, to do otherwise is far too risky long term despite short term gains.
So like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree.
We'll have to agree to disagree here too, I can't say I favor too much of anything socialistic.
Personally:
I'm a big believer in capitalism, I think it works really well. It's sort of like an online multi-player game on the PC. It works you just have to work to prevent the players (companies) from cheating (like forming monopolies or trusts to collude exclusive control of markets). As long as you can make sure everyone's competing equally on good terms it can work wonders, like a well organized game of BF2 the real trick is making sure in the right way everyone's competing. If they aren't, you get a frustrating game of counter-strike with wallhack/auto-aim using cheaters calling you a n00b.
You should be free to look for and apply at any job you want, and they should be free to reject you if you do not have the necessary qualifications or references they require.
Requiring they hire you is entitlement
Requiring that they ignore things irrelevant to your actual job performance or their company image (such as race, gender and sexual orientation) is meddling but I believe it's necessary meddling that needs a proper mandate. Affirmative action though, is entitlement and as of today I believe very unnecessary (it worked at first because it was needed as a tool to reverse social conceptions, once those are mostly done away with, the tool becomes unnecessary and at times counter productive.)
You should be free to work at any job you wish to support your family as well as you are capable of.
Minimum wage is entitlement but I do believe it is to an extent necessary, but it also needs to be more carefully looked at than it is now. Granted out here state minimum wage is way over federal so I can't really talk too much about federal but over here businesses in the lower end often use minimum wage increases to function as pay cuts since they don't have to increase wages if they're already above minimum wage but everyone can increase prices, fucking you over.
You should be free to pursue doctors, methods and practices to improve your health.
Free health care is entitlement and as of yet I have am not sure if it truly will bring about anything good enough to outweigh the cons I've heard, since it can actually reduce your choice.
Pursuit of happiness? We're free to pursue it all we want, will we ever achieve it? That depends on who where, when and what they're doing. Should the government just hand you your happiness on a silver platter? No, that's entitlement and that's making everyone else pay for something you want. We have to ask if something's really truly necessary to continue functioning soundly as a nation. The reason I so disagree with these two issues is that I believe we can't just give people everything they want, there are some sad stories out there and yes it's heartbreaking but we can't make government out to solve everyone's problems all the time and especially not by using emotional sob stories as justifications. It won't work and the worst part is these ideas of a boundless government and giving people whatever they want even if it may not be prudent or necessary or sane worry me. Stop thinking about now and only now to five years from now, start thinking ahead, start looking for loopholes and ways this can be exploited. This is why I believe in limited government, the best way to stop bad government intervention is to limit or stop government intervention.
If that were the case, then why give congress the power to pass laws? Did they expect for the government to get smaller? Even in the face of a growing population?
Could any of the founding fathers have imagined the world we live in today? If not, then how in the world would they be able to guesstimate the appropriate size, much less communicate it in such a way that only modern day libertarians would be able to understand without the use of paper post mortum?
Who's "we"? Are you the local monarch now?
And someone can walk in easily if we do away with government and have a large power vacumn. In fact, they would probably be able to walk in a lot more easily than they can right now.
So basically, libertopia will work as long as everyone is plugged into the matrix.
Government does need to grow and change as time passes, yes, but it needs to do so in a careful manner consistent with the social contract we signed when we formed our current union. What I cannot support is an ever growing state like we have now that's constantly encroaching our freedoms more and more as time passes and enacting more bureaucracy and getting farther and farther away from how we as a nation agreed to be governed.
I mean, what do we use as the basis for our government then if not the constitution? If you want to argue the constitution being outdated I'm going to have to ask. What do we do now? Governments are founded on social contracts between the governed and the state. The U.S. constitution is our contract, if it is outdated then what's the solution here? Do you recommend we amend it? Do we get a new contract? what?
Aren't we creating another sort of vacuum by abandoning our social contract without getting a new one? I'm not arguing to do away with all government, but to over time reduce it and get it back to smaller more sane terms, and to also get it back on track with the constitution.
Unfortunately there have been certain anomalies, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden to sedulously avoid it, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. :P
I'm not saying corporations should run wild, obviously that's a bad idea, because in a game of greed the goal is to own everything and if that's possible for businesses the people lose (and the ultimate point of capitalism is to benefit society by coercing people to do what helps it the most.) Competition works in a lot of areas. I'm not going to argue we should say, cut out the OHSA, especially when I hardly know the exact particulars about everything it does and regulates.
That said, we have a regulation I think is really unnecessary, granted not all of it is federal. Things like banning smoking in businesses, or FCC decency codes. That said I do believe the name of the game is pretty much leveling the playing field. We also need to stop corporations from then turning around and then buying government laws that are just there to prop up old business models. We need government, but we need sane government and part of that is trying to make a government that focuses only on what really is necessary. Human nature doesn't change, power corrupts, and stupidity is rampant. The best way to curtail that is to limit government and especially to make sure it adheres to some sort of consistent framework that has a hard backing the people agree or have agreed upon, some sort of...I don't know, maybe a social contract?
Firstly, for instance, the Department of Education is fairly important. Without such a federally regulated education standard, the value of education from state to state would vary so greatly it would be outrageously imbalanced. It's just not smart. Other federally funded and regulated departments and organizations are equally important. Privatization isn't the answer for everything, or very much at all.
That being said, I don't know who else I would vote for besides Ron Paul. These programs need reform, not abolishment, but I just don't see that any other candidate thinks even partially in the field of "Government is too strong." They view across just seems to be, "I've got the answer. I"ll do it right."
I may not agree with the specificities of his policies, but it's the essential philosophy of government he holds that I agree with. Government needs some kind of radical change. It's bad.
As per his economic policy, I had always understood that a hard-currency economic system was no better if not worse than our current fiat system. The Federal Reserve and IRS, however, I do believe can/should go. Not before cutting massive amounts of spending, waste and corruption (if ever), but eventually for sure.
Though maybe it's too much to hope for, that we'd close our 700+ military bases around the world. And god only knows what "more-perfect" system could ever eliminate political corruption... But if we could!
But only because he's the best politician up there. He seems genuine. At least, he seems genuine.
But I happen to think the whole country is fairly fucked up. Once again, I'm far more ignorant that even I could conceive, but as I understood it, one of the few things that kept the American economy strong despite all of our debt was the fact that the US dollar was the standard for trading in oil. And that aid is in danger of slipping away.
Obama might be a great politician, I just feel, unless I'm totally wrong (and I'm only here to really test that and find out if I am), that we need more than better, we need radical.
Ron Paul... eh, yeah.
Your libertarian logic is not like our Earth-logic.
Because it costs money to live in an industrial society. The roads and other infrastructure, the high levels of public education and health care, the cost of maintaining a decent standard of living for the elderly who can no longer work, inspections and standards for food and consumer products, administering the national parks and the agencies that monitor various aspects of the environment. That kind of thing.
Take a look at this: http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=1
I apparently had the wrong idea about the philosophy. I also turn out to just be wrong a lot, too.
I got that one a few days ago.
I even posted about it in this very thread.
So it is at least being mailed out in SC and NH.
Eh... I wasn't trying to sound like a tool or retard. Obama seems more honest about himself and his policies. In the very way he talks. It's almost as if he's talking to a crowd of people, instead of blank voting ballots.
But when he got in office, when any of them get in office for that matter, what actual guarantees do I have that they'll stick to what they said? Maybe not do exactly what they promised. It might just be unfortunately unrealistic, but what about trying for better alternatives? Obama was one, I believe, who said nothing was off the table with Iran. He pledged undying support of Israel. I should qualify that with that I'm not in favor of cutting support, but pledges like that end with multi-billion dollar arms deals for "balance," or something.
I'd be wholly surprised to learn that there wasn't a great deal more to the candidates than what I know right now. But, that's why I'm here.
Maybe... maybe he'll get someone else to handle immigration.
That pamphlet was... horrible. Was it Hunter or Cantredo* that was just anti-immigration almost entirely?
*I know.
How does that equal freedom though? You can argue for or against the current merits of government funded education, but it's an entitlement and not a freedom issue. I honestly think the whole "positive freedom thing" is an attempt to whitewash what's really just saying "government owes me this, they should give us that." Do we need certain things to function as a society? yes, but don't try to confuse people by calling it freedom.
It means that people's productive potential shouldn't be artificially hemmed in by an accident of birth.
Our debt isn't all that excessive by international standards. Our economy is kept strong by the fact that we have strong college level education, lower taxes, an entrepreneurial ethic and a structure that encourages innovation.
What you should probably realize is that what the Paulites want to achieve is a very fundamental change in the government of the country. They want it because it accords well with their ideology of government.
The idea that our current system is about to colapse, that it isn't working well, that a very bad time is coming - this idea is necessary for them to justify why such a huge change should take place. It is an indispensible part of the landscape of their arguments. If it did not exist, they would have to create it.
In fact, they have created it. Nothing is on the verge of colapse. Essentially they've piggy backed on popular dissatisfaction about the way the country is being administered by an unpopular president in order to push their ideas.
It's kind of like this: A guy you know has a certain lifestyle. He goes to college and works part time. You think that education is bad, totally morally evil, and work is good. Your friend has a bad semester at school, so you try to convince him that not only is he getting C's, he is just wasting his time. He is going into catastrophic debt for nothing, the stress is ruining his health and his finances. If he stays on like he is he will probably end up bankrupt and homeless, living in a cardboard box. This is what Ron Paul is saying to America. The reality is that Ron Paul just thinks school is evil. Understand?
That still isn't freedom in my opinion, freedom is the ability to make a choice or take an action. Doesn't mean it's not a good thing but I still find the idea to be an attempt to make something sound better to people who don't understand what's being talked about.
Ah, you're a proponent of useless freedom.
Of course it's freedom: the freedom to maximise their personal potential. It's not an evil linguistic trick, dude: the word really does encompass concepts beyond what does/does not get the police to kick your door down.
How is being free to solve any problems I might face in my life, myself, useless?
Funny, the dictionary seems to side with me.
That's what I've just been saying, that plus the idea that freedom is not asking to be given something. Sure it may be necessary, useful or nice, but I really can't agree that it's freedom.
Once again, and with feeling:
1) The government isn't taking the form that "the people" don't want. If it is/does, then "the people" will vote for people to change the government to be the way they DO want it to be. It's that simple. Stop confusing your own views on government expansion and corruption with everyone elses.
2) No one, except perhaps your mother, signed a social contract for you. You continue to sign your social contract every day you live in this country and vote in its system of government. The social contract is not something that came into existence before you were born, but is continuous. This isn't original fucking sin, and you aren't living here or under this contract against your will.
3) The Constitution created a government, whose purpose was to create and administer laws. As with ANY government, this one has evolved beyond the ideas of the Constitution, while keeping its basic ideas at heart. The spirit of the Constitution does not necessary equal the spirit of the law, nor does it need to.
4) Many, many people can work extraordinarily hard and diligently, yet never progress beyond earning a minimum wage. They are not exceptional. Just because you were born on third base doesn't mean you hit a triple.
Which do you think is more useful, telling a handicapped kid in a wheelchair that he is free to stand up or getting him one of the Kamen wheelchairs that can go up and down stairs and elevate, allowing him to easily get in and out of bed, reach things on high shelves and negotiate minor obstacles better?
See, the problem with your ideology is that it is so obvious that the kid with a greater range of motion has more freedom to guide his life and effect his will. So you have to fall back into all kinds of elaborate theories about how the person providing him with the Kamen wheelchair is secretly plotting to enslave him.
What we've been talking about fits very nicely under this rubric. Anyway, if you're going to rip out hunks from the dictionary and throw their bloody carcasses on the forum, would it hurt to digest them a bit more?