Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The perpetual union created by the Articles of Confederation, and modified into the more perfect union by the U.S. Constitution, was instituted to secure rights and govern those who consent. This is in harmony with the Declaration of Independence.
Sadly, most Americans consented to become serfs in a socialist democracy and have forgotten the prime reason for unity - as symbolized by the fasces - weak individuals, when united, become a powerful force to deter predators.
The fracture of the union only benefits the predators, who prefer weak prey.
fracture the union and the weak prey will be the feds.
My definition is one who is for maximum freedom, equal rights, social safety nets to protect the bottom from deep poverty and give them the ability to get back on their feet, privacy from the government, and a government that meets the needs of the people by providing needed services.
And by government I am referring to all government, local, state, and federal.
Government social safety nets are not classical liberalism. Classical liberalism would be most closely related to modern libertarianism.
You are not a classical liberal. You are nothing more than a modern progressive.
With that said, I am not questioning your statement that you want "maximum freedom". The problem you don't seem to recognize, is that it is impossible to have "freedom" when you think the government should have nearly unlimited power to impose wealth redistribution through social-safety nets. You also believe that the government can somehow remain "unbiased" and "free" when it provides services, such as educating every single child from a very very young age in the curriculum of its choosing(IE history). Or that the government can somehow be unbiased in its imposition of "equal rights", when the actual mechanism of imposing equal rights necessarily requires the government to seek absolute equality in all things(regardless of if equality can even naturally exist).
Basically, the original goal might be to provide "equality of opportunity". But how do you really know if there is equality of opportunity without "equality of outcomes"? Which is why equality of opportunity always transforms into equality of outcomes. And when a progressive sees that any group is paid more or less than another group on average, they push to solve that problem through government force, many times without even trying to understand the problem.
A great example is the fact that women supposedly earn "77 cents for every dollar" men earn. On its face it sounds bad, but there are actually completely logical reasons for why that difference exists. But do progressives care?
The point is, progressives don't want a big government for the sake of a big government. Progressives want a big government to do all of the things you claim to want government to do. No one is questioning your "good intentions". But what you fail to recognize is that everyone actually shares your same good intentions. The only difference of opinion here, is how best to achieve those good intentions.
Take for instance this quote by Benjamin Franklin...
“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
Liberals/progressives think government can fix everything. While classical liberals recognize that government is always wasteful, corrupt, and abusive. And they tend to believe that individuals on their own, or individuals through voluntary organizations are actually the most effective way of handling any social problem.
I was actually once a fairly typical progressive liberal like you. At that time, I felt like it was basically the job of government to take care of all of us. I actually even had a thought process that went like this, "I want the government to do everything it has the power to do, and since it basically has the power to do anything, I want it to do everything. And I blame the government for everything bad which happens, that it had the power to stop, and I demand the government prevent those bad things from happening in the future."
If you don't believe me, look at my posts from the very beginning of this city-data account, from like 2009. I was quite the Obama supporter back then.
In my opinion, the real difference in political ideologies, is how a person feels about government. Basically, do you think the people around you are almost all bad, mostly bad, mostly good, or almost entirely good? Do you think the government is almost all bad, mostly bad, mostly good, or almost entirely good?
If you think the government is "almost all bad" and that people are "almost all good", then you are likely to be a libertarian or an anarchist. If you think the government is "almost entirely good", you would range from a neo-con to a far-left liberal.
I would say, I started out thinking the government was "almost entirely good". Then as time went by and I am shown over and over again, not only now by Obama, or recently by Bush, but through all of American history, and for that matter world history, how corrupt governments always are. How often the government lies, not only to hide its own corruption, but to convince you to do things you are opposed to.
Then when I look around me at the people the government is supposed to be "helping". I have to wonder whether or not they are doing any good at all. But even those doubts of government didn't stop me in believing that government couldn't solve our problems. We just needed to choose "better people". But how do you choose better people? And if it was that easy, why haven't we done it?
I would say the final tipping point in my views on government came when someone posted this video in a thread I was posting in.
After that, I think I watched every video of Milton Friedman on youtube. Which slowly pulled me towards libertarianism. But libertarianism didn't go far enough in my mind. Because libertarianism didn't solve what I like to call "the jerk problem". A good reference for the jerk problem is the "Westboro baptist church"(or for that matter, Wal-mart).
On one hand, I don't want jerks like the Westboro baptist church running around being jerks. But on the other hand, I don't want the government prohibiting any "offensive speech", even if I disagree with it, because it would create a "slippery slope".
I came to realize that there is really only one type of government that solves the jerk problem. And that would be a government which was entirely voluntary.
For instance, take this quote by Jefferson "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
I disagree with Jefferson somewhat. I don't believe that any government, Democracy or not, can ever prevent government from being run by a bunch of criminals. It is simply an inevitability.
Well, a tax break can be the equivalent of "free stuff" if the tax break lowers a persons tax liability to the point that he pays less than his share of the cost of government relative to the cost he imposes on others.
Basically, if you cost the government $10,000 a year, and your actions only produce a value of $8,000 a year, then you are effectively getting $2,000 for free. I say "actions", not "your taxes". Because your actions can produce taxable activity in which you do not directly pay. For instance, corporate taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, excise taxes, and property taxes are rarely considered in the debate over income tax liabilities.
There is also a debate over whether or not a "regressive" tax would be the equivalent of the wealthy getting something for "free". Even if by paying a lower percentage, they are paying a far greater absolute amount(IE 30% of 10,000 is far less than 10% of 300,000).
The point is, everyone votes for their own economic benefit, without much regard for how it unfairly imposes costs on others. That is how Democracy actually works. People aren't voting out of the goodness of their own hearts. Maybe some people do, and most others will say they are. But the vast majority "vote with their wallet".
How Democracy really works, is that everyone is voting to take as much they can from everyone else. Either for themselves or for their friends. They may look for ways to justify it rationally, but the result is still the same.
In truth, Democracy is the antithesis of charity. Democracy is a system where people declare they deserve a larger piece of the pie by voting themselves a larger share. Charity is a system where people voluntarily give their piece of the pie to others.
One is based on a belief that you are entitled to something from others. The other is based on the belief that you are obligated to help others.
Democracy and government actually corrupts everything it touches. It distorts everything good in humanity.
As Adam Smith said...
“The great source of both the misery and disorders of human life, seems to arise from over-rating the difference between one permanent situation and another. Avarice over-rates the difference between poverty and riches: ambition, that between a private and a public station: vain-glory, that between obscurity and extensive reputation. The person under the influence of any of those extravagant passions, is not only miserable in his actual situation, but is often disposed to disturb the peace of society, in order to arrive at that which he so foolishly admires. The slightest observation, however, might satisfy him, that, in all the ordinary situations of human life, a well-disposed mind may be equally calm, equally cheerful, and equally contented. Some of those situations may, no doubt, deserve to be preferred to others: but none of them can deserve to be pursued with that passionate ardour which drives us to violate the rules either of prudence or of justice; or to corrupt the future tranquillity of our minds, either by shame from the remembrance of our own folly, or by remorse from the horror of our own injustice.”
False, I care when anyone votes, even if they vote for who I don't want. You want to see Libertarians in office pushing Libertarian ideology, then vote for those people. If you don't then you are just sitting on the sideline complaining.
Look, it would be utter stupidity to vote for someone who has zero chance of winning. It would be like betting your life savings on the kid with a limp winning the Olympics. It just isn't going to happen.
It would be one thing to vote for the people who you most agree with if it had no further implications. But the actual effect of voting for someone who can't win, is to not vote at all.
For instance, in 2012, about two million people voted for someone other than the Democrats and Republicans. Who cares? Do you care? Does it change the political dialog at all? No. The cause of Libertarianism wasn't furthered by Gary Johnson. I would bet the vast majority of voters have absolutely no idea who Gary Johnson even is.
The cause of libetarianism was furthered by Ron Paul. And that was only possible because he ran as a Republican. Like it or not, the two-party system is just a reality. And it is a reality because our system of government requires you to effectively get 51% of all votes. If you cannot get 51% of the vote, you get nothing.
Anyone who advocates for a third-party is either insane, a moron, or is trying to divide their opposition.
I assume, since you are a progressive, and you don't seem to either be insane or a moron, you must therefore be trying to split your opposition. Which while I concede is a rational decision on your part. I must say, by resorting to manipulation instead of honesty to produce your desired result, you are actually everything I hate about humanity.
I would like people's opinions as to why the United States should continue as is. I would like to know why Mississippi should be in the same country as New Jersey. Why Vermont should be in the same country as South Carolina, etc. Rather than banter about conspiracy theories about secessionist movements and the like, I just want to know the reason why we're still together. We clearly don't have a common culture, we don't have common religious beliefs, we don't have common goals, and we don't have common views on the role of government. What gives? What's keeping us together?
And remember, this is a WHY question.
Fear & Ignorance.
You're implying there differences between the States you mentioned. There are, and why shouldn't there be?
Confederalism and Federalism are pro-Diversity. They are both supportive and conducive to Diversity. For those reasons, the Framer's chose a confederacy first, and then a federal republic.
A Unitary State -- Unitarism -- is anti-Diversity. Unitarism is intolerant and stifling.
There is no precedent for Unitarism surviving in a country. That's impossible, simply because of the dynamics involved.
Where do you see Unitarism, or Unitary State governments? In nation-States....like Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Greece...all of which became Fascist States....and which could easily turn Fascist again.
Spain? Spain is a country, not a nation-State. The Fascists tried....and failed, but they're still trying.
So, you have Liberals pushing and coercing the US into Unitarism with a powerful central government.
How does that story end?
In the exact same way every previous attempt in the last 5,000 years has ended: Civil War.
Your only salvation is a return to federalism and complete restoration of the Constitution.
What benchmark can you use to know if you are successful?
Simple. You know how you pay 10%-37% of your taxes the national government and 1%-3% to your State?
When you have returned to federalism and restored the Constitution, it'll be the exact opposite: you'll be paying 3% of your taxes to the federal government and 10%-37% to your State.
And one more thing: when the Speaker of the House tells a sitting President of the same political party to ****.
The Speakers is the one who runs the country, not the President. The President runs the Executive Branch and is Chief Diplomat and Commander-in-Chief, but does not run the US....that's the Speaker's job.
Your system is tolerant of 3rd Parties, but Fear & Ignorance prevents people from acting rationally, because they think the President is in charge, when actually it is the Speaker.
The Speaker is chosen by vote from members of the House. Typically, the party with the majority elects one of its own as Speaker. What happens if there is no majority, due to 3rd Parties?
I guess we can all sit in a corner and sulk...or, factions within various parties could form a coalition to get enough votes to elect a Speaker.
The point is if you intend to return to federalism and restore the Constitution, then you have a reason to remain part of the US.
But, if Liberals keep pushing and marching toward a Unitary State, there's no reason to stay.
Again, that is Fear & Ignorance.
Look at all the Stu-tards who say, "Uh.....Texas won't get any money from the government."
That's at least an IQ of 2.
It's about educating people.
Texans give $249 Billion to the government. And, yes, that is an actual figure from the IRS for all revenues of all forms collected from Texas.
If Texas secedes, what happens to that $249 Billion?
Um, it stays in Texas.
If you live in Texas......you now live in Nirvana.
There are many States that would be better off without the US. For nearly everyone in those States, your disposable income would increase 20%-45%.
It's a little premature, but I think after the 2016 Election and when things start to go south economically, it will be time to educate people on the factual realities. And people need to see, instead of simply being told. When people can plug in the numbers and see how much better off their life would be, it's really compelling. Of course, the factual reality is that some States are like Greece or Portugal and always will be, not matter what. Even so, people need to know that Truth, too.
I would like people's opinions as to why the United States should continue as is. I would like to know why Mississippi should be in the same country as New Jersey. Why Vermont should be in the same country as South Carolina, etc. Rather than banter about conspiracy theories about secessionist movements and the like, I just want to know the reason why we're still together. We clearly don't have a common culture, we don't have common religious beliefs, we don't have common goals, and we don't have common views on the role of government. What gives? What's keeping us together?
And remember, this is a WHY question.
Because the constitution exists because the federal government exists.
Because the vast majority of citizens in any state don't want to leave the USA.
Threads like this prove that conservatives hate America as it exists and increasingly hate more and more of their fellow Americans.
For many conservatives, they only want to remain American if they can exclude all of the other Americans they hate from having a say in how the nation is run.
Texans give $249 Billion to the government. And, yes, that is an actual figure from the IRS for all revenues of all forms collected from Texas.
If Texas secedes, what happens to that $249 Billion?
Um, it stays in Texas.
If you live in Texas......you now live in Nirvana.
There are many States that would be better off without the US. For nearly everyone in those States, your disposable income would increase 20%-45%.
It's a little premature, but I think after the 2016 Election and when things start to go south economically, it will be time to educate people on the factual realities. And people need to see, instead of simply being told. When people can plug in the numbers and see how much better off their life would be, it's really compelling. Of course, the factual reality is that some States are like Greece or Portugal and always will be, not matter what. Even so, people need to know that Truth, too.
Answering...
Mircea
Yeah. Um. Except that for every dollar that goes to the federal government, Texas RECEIVES $1.43 in return from the feds.
How does that work in your rather simplistic example, above?
Because the constitution exists because the federal government exists.
Because the vast majority of citizens in any state don't want to leave the USA.
Threads like this prove that conservatives hate America as it exists and increasingly hate more and more of their fellow Americans.
First, to be a conservatives basically means "to conserve", which means to "stay the same". Conservatives either want to keep things as they are now, or keep things as they were before. Conservatives hate America only in regards to an America that is changing into something far different than what they believe America is or was. Further, they believe most of these changes are effectively "unconstitutional" but that merely distortions of the constitution have allowed the legislature and the court to give meaning to the constitution which was never intended. And progressives not only recognize these "unconstitutional" interpretations, but actually seek them out. Usually arguing that "the constitution was written over 200 years ago, the people who wrote it couldn't imagine the world as it is today, we need to interpret the constitution in a modern context."
As for the question over whether or not someone can be patriotic and support secession. I think that is somewhat complicated. For instance, the Americans who were seceding from Britain called themselves Patriots, even though Britain was technically their "country". Even more, the Patriots weren't fighting for anything called "The United States", since no such country even existed. In most cases they were merely fighting for their own "colony".
The question then is, were the American colonists who fought in the Revolutionary War actually "patriots" or just rebels/secessionists/insurrectionists?
Well, I suppose that depends on your definition of patriot. If you believe that a patriot always supports his politically independent country, then the colonists who fought in the Revolutionary War cannot be considered patriots. On the other hand, if a country can mean any political unit, even if it isn't technically independent(IE a colony, or a state), then the colonists were patriots. And for that matter, a Texan who supports secession could also be considered a patriot.
For instance, if the colonists called themselves patriots when they seceded from Britain(and we usually consider them as such), then obviously, secession itself can be patriotic. If that be the case, then patriotism can effectively include any political boundary(colonies, provinces, states, counties, cities, etc).
For instance, had the southerners been successful in seceding in 1861. Those who supported secession would have been called "patriots". And those who opposed "loyalists".
Of course, since the south lost we call them traitors. And had the "patriots" lost in the Revolutionary War, they would have been called traitors instead of patriots as well.
In my opinion, if you think the colonists were patriots, then secession is about the most patriotic thing anyone could do.
First, to be a conservatives basically means "to conserve", which means to "stay the same". Conservatives either want to keep things as they are now, or keep things as they were before. Conservatives hate America only in regards to an America that is changing into something far different than what they believe America is or was. Further, they believe most of these changes are effectively "unconstitutional" but that merely distortions of the constitution have allowed the legislature and the court to give meaning to the constitution which was never intended. And progressives not only recognize these "unconstitutional" interpretations, but actually seek them out. Usually arguing that "the constitution was written over 200 years ago, the people who wrote it couldn't imagine the world as it is today, we need to interpret the constitution in a modern context."
As for the question over whether or not someone can be patriotic and support secession. I think that is somewhat complicated. For instance, the Americans who were seceding from Britain called themselves Patriots, even though Britain was technically their "country". Even more, the Patriots weren't fighting for anything called "The United States", since no such country even existed. In most cases they were merely fighting for their own "colony".
The question then is, were the American colonists who fought in the Revolutionary War actually "patriots" or just rebels/secessionists/insurrectionists?
Well, I suppose that depends on your definition of patriot. If you believe that a patriot always supports his politically independent country, then the colonists who fought in the Revolutionary War cannot be considered patriots. On the other hand, if a country can mean any political unit, even if it isn't technically independent(IE a colony, or a state), then the colonists were patriots. And for that matter, a Texan who supports secession could also be considered a patriot.
For instance, if the colonists called themselves patriots when they seceded from Britain(and we usually consider them as such), then obviously, secession itself can be patriotic. If that be the case, then patriotism can effectively include any political boundary(colonies, provinces, states, counties, cities, etc).
For instance, had the southerners been successful in seceding in 1861. Those who supported secession would have been called "patriots". And those who opposed "loyalists".
Of course, since the south lost we call them traitors. And had the "patriots" lost in the Revolutionary War, they would have been called traitors instead of patriots as well.
In my opinion, if you think the colonists were patriots, then secession is about the most patriotic thing anyone could do.
Trying to keep things the same is an idiotic goal and impossible. Human beings can't keep their individual lives the same. Let alone a whole nation with over 300 million citizens with social and political institutions.
Laws can be deemed unconstitutional there is a process to address that problem. "Changes" as you listed cannot be deemed anything by law. conservatives saying they think "changes" are unconstitutional is nonsense.
In terms of your silly debate about who can be labeled patriots or rebels/secessionists, that's just semantics.
Here is reality, those that seek to destroy American by seceding aren't American patriots. Now if they are successful in destroying America and manage to create a new nation, then yes they would be considered patriots of the new nation.
Well, a tax break can be the equivalent of "free stuff" if the tax break lowers a persons tax liability to the point that he pays less than his share of the cost of government relative to the cost he imposes on others.
Basically, if you cost the government $10,000 a year, and your actions only produce a value of $8,000 a year, then you are effectively getting $2,000 for free. I say "actions", not "your taxes". Because your actions can produce taxable activity in which you do not directly pay. For instance, corporate taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, excise taxes, and property taxes are rarely considered in the debate over income tax liabilities.
There is also a debate over whether or not a "regressive" tax would be the equivalent of the wealthy getting something for "free". Even if by paying a lower percentage, they are paying a far greater absolute amount(IE 30% of 10,000 is far less than 10% of 300,000).
The point is, everyone votes for their own economic benefit, without much regard for how it unfairly imposes costs on others. That is how Democracy actually works. People aren't voting out of the goodness of their own hearts. Maybe some people do, and most others will say they are. But the vast majority "vote with their wallet".
How Democracy really works, is that everyone is voting to take as much they can from everyone else. Either for themselves or for their friends. They may look for ways to justify it rationally, but the result is still the same.
In truth, Democracy is the antithesis of charity. Democracy is a system where people declare they deserve a larger piece of the pie by voting themselves a larger share. Charity is a system where people voluntarily give their piece of the pie to others.
One is based on a belief that you are entitled to something from others. The other is based on the belief that you are obligated to help others.
Democracy and government actually corrupts everything it touches. It distorts everything good in humanity.
As Adam Smith said...
“The great source of both the misery and disorders of human life, seems to arise from over-rating the difference between one permanent situation and another. Avarice over-rates the difference between poverty and riches: ambition, that between a private and a public station: vain-glory, that between obscurity and extensive reputation. The person under the influence of any of those extravagant passions, is not only miserable in his actual situation, but is often disposed to disturb the peace of society, in order to arrive at that which he so foolishly admires. The slightest observation, however, might satisfy him, that, in all the ordinary situations of human life, a well-disposed mind may be equally calm, equally cheerful, and equally contented. Some of those situations may, no doubt, deserve to be preferred to others: but none of them can deserve to be pursued with that passionate ardour which drives us to violate the rules either of prudence or of justice; or to corrupt the future tranquillity of our minds, either by shame from the remembrance of our own folly, or by remorse from the horror of our own injustice.”
But the tax break itself is not free stuff the free stuff is. To eliminate it the government should reduce services though even then it would impossible to predict from year to year how much any individual would supply or consume. A person might be used through no fault of their own and end up costing the government "unpaid" expenses for running the court. Similarly, the person might have a Beverly Hillbillies experience and discover a previously unexploited income stream at no cost to anyone.
Even if given voluntarily a tax is the government seizing a person's income under threat of force even if the force is never exercised. Now it is rare that you can have a government no matter how limited without taxation of some sort, but at the end of the day it is the government simply taking people's money or else.
Moreover though this just seems a rather distasteful view of the relationship between the government and individuals for a libertarian as you essentially reduce each individual to a resource the government can rightfully exploit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
