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.
Trump's voting base want to see the USA come crashing down. They have zero regard for The Constitution and are only concerned with the 2nd amendment that they so badly twist and distort anyway. These tools actually prefer an authoritarian leader to tell them what to do and think and resent the concept of equal rights, justice and fairness and operate as genuine sociopaths. Many of the other Twitler's fans are in fact Russkie trolls straight from Putin's troll farm.
I think Trump is a Statist idiot (I don't vote, so I'm definitely not part of his base). With that being said, however:
The Constitution is meaningless; rights do not come from a piece of paper. I never signed it, nor did I ever sign a "social contract." Rights are not granted by the State; they are inherent Natural Rights that come with being born. The only reason inequality, injustice, and war exists is because the State exists.
As long as there is no violation of someone else's liberty, one must be free to live their lives in any way they see fit--hence no drug laws, no gun laws, no prostitution laws, no obscenity laws, and the only speech laws are libel and slander. If there is no victim, there is no crime. The only crimes are murder, rape, assault, theft, trespass, fraud, and libel/slander.
I think Trump is a Statist idiot (I don't vote, so I'm definitely not part of his base). With that being said, however:
The Constitution is meaningless; rights do not come from a piece of paper. I never signed it, nor did I ever sign a "social contract." Rights are not granted by the State; they are inherent Natural Rights that come with being born. The only reason inequality, injustice, and war exists is because the State exists.
As long as there is no violation of someone else's liberty, one must be free to live their lives in any way they see fit--hence no drug laws, no gun laws, no prostitution laws, no obscenity laws, and the only speech laws are libel and slander. If there is no victim, there is no crime. The only crimes are murder, rape, assault, theft, trespass, fraud, and libel/slander.
Eh, I have long been convinced that "natural rights" or "natural law" is the law of power to do what it wishes.
Plays out every day in nature.
The idea of inherent human rights are themselves a philosophical layer we have applied over the top of that "natural law" to make it more palatable to our egos. Demonstrable anywhere civilization has broken down, demonstrable in basically every predatory species, the only subversions of this rule arise in social species, and these contradictions themselves are actually still in line with the "natural law" of power, because invariably they increase the given power of the social unit of said species, increasing their ability to apply greater power both against other species and other subsets of their own.
We apply "human rights" on top of the law of the jungle for 2 reasons:
1) Our egos dislike the idea that our life and the lives of those we care about are constantly in a precarious balance, we want greater control over this balance
2) They increase our relative power because of increased social cohesion and stability, allowing us to maintain reason #1 (the true motivation) by exercise of power to enforce the protection of these "human rights" through the "natural law". We can call this the "10 people with guns are stronger than 1 person with a gun" principle.
The law of power to do what it wants is the ONLY "right" that cannot be taken away through the exercise of force. Because to overcome said power you would need a greater power, and as soon as that happens the framework shifts to the more powerful entity and remains valid.
No. Never. FDR and congress during that time was onto something when he signed the bill to put term limits for president into place.
This is also not a monarchy.
Eh, I have long been convinced that "natural rights" or "natural law" is the law of power to do what it wishes.
Plays out every day in nature.
The idea of inherent human rights are themselves a philosophical layer we have applied over the top of that "natural law" to make it more palatable to our egos. Demonstrable anywhere civilization has broken down, demonstrable in basically every predatory species, the only subversions of this rule arise in social species, and these contradictions themselves are actually still in line with the "natural law" of power, because invariably they increase the given power of the social unit of said species, increasing their ability to apply greater power both against other species and other subsets of their own.
We apply "human rights" on top of the law of the jungle for 2 reasons:
1) Our egos dislike the idea that our life and the lives of those we care about are constantly in a precarious balance, we want greater control over this balance
2) They increase our relative power because of increased social cohesion and stability, allowing us to maintain reason #1 (the true motivation) by exercise of power to enforce the protection of these "human rights" through the "natural law". We can call this the "10 people with guns are stronger than 1 person with a gun" principle.
The law of power to do what it wants is the ONLY "right" that cannot be taken away through the exercise of force. Because to overcome said power you would need a greater power, and as soon as that happens the framework shifts to the more powerful entity and remains valid.
All fair and valid points. Anarchy is not utopia, but utopias don't exist anyway.
Where I would disagree with you is on the "10 people with guns" principle; right now we are ruled over by a heavily armed State, with federal alphabet agencies armed up the wazoo, crooked cops everywhere, and an enormous spy apparatus tracking our nearly every move. My point is the State is the one with the "10 guns" power, and I rather take my chances on having no State at all and to see how it goes.
No. Never. FDR and congress during that time was onto something when he signed the bill to put term limits for president into place. This is also not a monarchy.
The Kennedys and the Bush/Clinton crime families would beg to differ.
My point is the State is the one with the "10 guns" power, and I rather take my chances on having no State at all and to see how it goes.
Unfortunately for you and other like minded people, the "natural law of power" prevents you from being able to make this decision for yourself, as you would need the power to upset the framework the current power structure holds in place, which was basically my point... no philosophical concept in the world will stop a bullet from a gun
No. Never. FDR and congress during that time was onto something when he signed the bill to put term limits for president into place.
This is also not a monarchy.
uhm... FDR (who wanted to be president for life) did NOT sign the bill
the 22nd amendment was a REACTION to FDR's 4th term...congress ratified it in '47, and the states ratified it in '51
and since then many a demoncrat has tried to put forth to abolish the 22nd amendment
uhm... FDR (who wanted to be president for life) did NOT sign the bill
the 22nd amendment was a REACTION to FDR's 4th term...congress ratified it in '47, and the states ratified it in '51
and since then many a demoncrat has tried to put forth to abolish the 22nd amendment
FDR did not want to be pres for life, but the Dems didn't want to "Change horses in midstream" in 1944, so they ran him again, and the GOP could not find a suitable substitute.
A significant factor driving the 22nd was FDR's dying in office.
And, actually, attempts have been made by both GOPers and Dems to repeal the 22nd, and so far, all have withered in committee.
Unfortunately for you and other like minded people, the "natural law of power" prevents you from being able to make this decision for yourself, as you would need the power to upset the framework the current power structure holds in place, which was basically my point... no philosophical concept in the world will stop a bullet from a gun
I'll take my chances...
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.
