U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 08:34 AM
 
Location: USA
18,747 posts, read 9,179,836 times
Reputation: 14104

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae View Post
A Free Press is a vital instrument in preventing a takeover by a tyrannical government. Right now I'm seeing that fundamental right under constant attack. When the Free Press goes away, the rest of your rights will follow.
There is not much of a "Free Press" anymore. It has been usurped by the LEFT and the technology masters of the universe. It is getting difficult to find certain stories as much of the MEDIA purposely omit them, or bury them. Then there is the spin (lying) to actually change the story if they do report it.

This is NOT the Government restricting Free Press which is what are laws protect us from, but private, very powerful entities, now more influential than Government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 08:38 AM
 
Location: Midwest
31,770 posts, read 19,828,281 times
Reputation: 8021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
There is not much of a "Free Press" anymore. It has been usurped by the LEFT and the technology masters of the universe. It is getting difficult to find certain stories as much of the MEDIA purposely omit them, or bury them. Then there is the spin (lying) to actually change the story if they do report it.

This is NOT the Government restricting Free Press which is what are laws protect us from, but private, very powerful entities, now more influential than Government.
I see trump has successfully brainwashed you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:39 AM
 
Location: Cape Cod
11,981 posts, read 8,386,712 times
Reputation: 20556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
im not an NRA member and the NRA isnt an actual person or single school of thought as you imply but...
There is self preservation, as well as worry about the cops showing up and shooting you because you have a gun in your hand. There is no cowardice in either.
Speaking of cops, how do you feel about them shooting the family pet and unarmed citizens or killing women, children etc. as govt security did at Waco and Ruby Ridge?



But the NRA is made up of individuals. Of course as with any "club" there are the fanatics and the casual members...


As for cops shooting the family dog that is simply doing what most dogs do in protecting the property that is a tragic mistake. As for Waco and Ruby Ridge that is what happens when the Gov. gets involved and pushes for a certain outcome but still breaking the law is breaking the law.



I think the most problems with the Police we see today are a result of the pressures that the officers feel in their daily duties. When you think about the rising levels of violence in our society where it is hard to tell the good guys from bad and in some cases like what happened in Philly last week the public actually impeded the Police from arresting a wanted drug dealer that was trying to shoot them.



What kind of confidence do such actions give police officers?

What kind of confidence is gained when the public and politicians turn their backs on the police and other law enforcement authorities such as ICE that are risking their lives and doing the hard work day after day?


Disarming the general public is often the first step towards tyranny and now the Police are often viewed as the enemy of the people. If we are denied saving ourselves can we rely on the police? can we rely on the government to protect us? With what the Dems are peddling for 2020 I doubt it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:40 AM
 
30,155 posts, read 16,645,414 times
Reputation: 14014
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
That is what trump is trying to do. Since trump can't, he is trying to get our citizens to believe it is "fake."
And your guy/gal will do the same when they're in the big chair at which time you'll applaud the efforts.
Fool me once...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:43 AM
 
Location: alexandria, VA
9,898 posts, read 4,464,301 times
Reputation: 5502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
There is not much of a "Free Press" anymore. It has been usurped by the LEFT and the technology masters of the universe. It is getting difficult to find certain stories as much of the MEDIA purposely omit them, or bury them. Then there is the spin (lying) to actually change the story if they do report it.

This is NOT the Government restricting Free Press which is what are laws protect us from, but private, very powerful entities, now more influential than Government.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe the right just isn't very good at journalism, writing, debating, media production, entertainment, etc., etc. God knows the right has plenty of money. And they still can't compete successfully in a free market economy. But boy they can sure whine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 11:55 AM
 
Location: Texas
27,087 posts, read 11,373,247 times
Reputation: 6240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd View Post
But the NRA is made up of individuals. Of course as with any "club" there are the fanatics and the casual members...

As for cops shooting the family dog that is simply doing what most dogs do in protecting the property that is a tragic mistake. As for Waco and Ruby Ridge that is what happens when the Gov. gets involved and pushes for a certain outcome but still breaking the law is breaking the law.

I think the most problems with the Police we see today are a result of the pressures that the officers feel in their daily duties. When you think about the rising levels of violence in our society where it is hard to tell the good guys from bad and in some cases like what happened in Philly last week the public actually impeded the Police from arresting a wanted drug dealer that was trying to shoot them.

What kind of confidence do such actions give police officers?

What kind of confidence is gained when the public and politicians turn their backs on the police and other law enforcement authorities such as ICE that are risking their lives and doing the hard work day after day?

Disarming the general public is often the first step towards tyranny and now the Police are often viewed as the enemy of the people. If we are denied saving ourselves can we rely on the police? can we rely on the government to protect us? With what the Dems are peddling for 2020 I doubt it.
The problem is law enforcement isn't held accountable. Now that the cameras are out to expose the bad and exonerate the good ones, the truth is finally being exposed. When humans are not held accountable some will do bad things.

Violent crime has been going down for quite some time.

The two most commonly cited sources of crime statistics in the U.S. both show a substantial decline in the violent crime rate since it peaked in the early 1990s.

Using the FBI numbers, the violent crime rate fell 49% between 1993 and 2017. Using the BJS data, the rate fell 74% during that span. (For both studies, 2017 is the most recent full year of data.) The long-term decline in violent crime hasn’t been uninterrupted, though. The FBI, for instance, reported increases in the violent crime rate between 2004 and 2006 and again between 2014 and 2016.


https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...me-in-the-u-s/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:17 PM
 
Location: SGV
25,244 posts, read 9,852,030 times
Reputation: 9834
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
So which one are you?


[] One of the sovereign people who directly exercise sovereignty over their person, liberty and property, whose endowed rights are secured by government?


[] Or one of the subject citizens who indirectly exercise sovereignty via delegation to representatives, and have surrendered endowed rights in exchange for civil and political liberties (i.e."rights") by consent to be governed?
Neither.

And all of us are neither so there's that to chew on.

This is the worst kind of statist drivel and it comes from the far Right, minarchists, Libertarian (capital A), and "sovereign citizen" types.

Let's dismantle these two paradigms starting with #2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Or one of the subject citizens who indirectly exercise sovereignty via delegation to representatives, and have surrendered endowed rights in exchange for civil and political liberties (i.e."rights") by consent to be governed?
Consent is the sticking point. No statist understands it including OP despite his cries of "I've cracked the code!".

Consent is an agreement between two or more individuals who are free from duress and have the cognitive ability to do so. Obviously no man can agree to something when he has a gun to his head or he is in a coma. Surely even the statist grasps this even if it's only applied to dealings outside the government as they operate now.

Now, why is consent exclusive to individuals and not collectives (voluntary or involuntary)? That is because consent is a product of a natural right being exercised. And say it with me folks: ONLY INDIVIDUALS HAVE NATURAL RIGHTS.

If I, a member of the voluntary association of bird watchers, kill a man in cold blood for s-hits & giggles then the crime that has been committed is as follows: Individual A violated the natural rights of Individual B by initiating force on the victim resulting in his/her/its death.

The voluntary association of bird watchers neither committed the crime nor is responsible for it. That is because the association has no natural rights to exercise and therefore cannot violate the natural rights of others.

Even in my diatribes about the State violating rights I'm not being completely clear because the State isn't the one violating rights...technically speaking...it is individuals acting on behalf of the State which violate the rights of others. So yes, for the sake of brevity even I am lazy in trying to point out the hypocrisy. The State is this ambiguous entity with no rights and no face because it's a social construct and as we all know social constructs only have as much weight as the individual chooses to give it. So when I rail against you folks in support of your State I'm trying get you to rid yourself of the preordained violation of rights in the name of said State. I would prefer it if you violated rights on your own. It's much more appealing and human.

So, to recap: Paradigm #2 is false because the State has no rights and only those with rights (individuals) can properly consent to something and furthermore only individuals can violate natural rights.

Let's now debunk Paradigm #1...

Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
One of the sovereign people who directly exercise sovereignty over their person, liberty and property, whose endowed rights are secured by government?
We start off fine with individuals (people) exercising their rights (sovereignty) over their person, liberty and property. Great so far. Each individual is born free from contractual obligation, both in practice (actually signing your name and having the cognitive ability to do so on an accord) and in theory (the magical social contract has no basis in logic or morality...contrary to the belief of statists).

But we hit a snag when it comes to the rights of the individual being "secured by government".

Well, what's the problem?

The problem is that if we are talking about involuntary government (like the State) we can see right away that this is in direct conflict with the first part of the paradigm where individuals have rights. We know this because all involuntary governments (States) violate the natural rights of all individuals regardless if those States claim ownership over the victim or not. Give credit where credit is due to the likes of Hitler or Stalin for violating the rights of millions of folks not under their State's claim. Call it a bonus. Then again, Pol Pot did most of his damage "in house" and racked up quite the body count as well. States (involuntary governments) are quite prolific in violating natural rights...or should I say individuals acting on behalf of those States after they've accepted the paradigm the OP is peddling here.

If government was voluntary it would be limited in scope to the individuals within it when it came to securing rights and processing claims/interactions of its members. If I and John Doe formed a contract to start a government we may do so but all rulings inside of that government only apply to the two of us. We may set up a private arbitrator and private insurer to expedite matters that may arise.

A GOVERNMENT OR ANY OTHER INSTITUTION THAT REQUIRES AN INDIVIDUAL TO OPT OUT WITHOUT FIRST OPTING IN VIA PROPER CONSENT IS IN FACT SLAVERY.

Sorry folks. It's the definition of slavery. Plain and simple. You cannot opt out of something you never opted into and no amount of social contract magic is going to change this fact. So as you can see, the OP's dichotomy is a false one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:52 PM
 
Location: SGV
25,244 posts, read 9,852,030 times
Reputation: 9834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
You implicitly consent to that which you do not oppose. Nobody in any country has to consent to anything, but self-preservation, common sense and practicality make even the most principled amongst us implicitly consent to all kinds of tyranny every minute of every day.
I wouldn't use the word "consent" here. I wouldn't even use "implicit consent".

When you are under duress, and contrary to the popular belief of statists who go along each day as if they are free and think nobody is under duress-you are, you cannot give consent of any kind.

It's the vast scope of the violations that create this paradigm. We've talked about this before in how mostly everyone lives their daily lives as anarchists yet when it comes to the government special rules suddenly apply.

In my previous post I mentioned how we need to start holding individuals responsible even if they are acting on behalf of the State when they do their dirty work. Well, that's what I meant anyway. It's something all of us are lazy on. We hit it hard when it comes to cops killing dogs after becoming "fearful for their lives" or arresting little old ladies for feeding stray cats but it needs to be done at all levels and more consistently. Sure, it's technically on behalf of the State but it is individuals who are doing the dirty work. When you do something immoral and illogical, as we all do, you are doing so because the State has the most power and will fine/cage/kill you at its discretion. But it takes an individual to carry out the order.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:37 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
10,130 posts, read 6,719,528 times
Reputation: 6431
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
You mean I don't have to consent to Donald Trump? Best news I've heard all day!

Now if, say, the City of Los Angeles also does not want to submit to the tyranny of Donald Trump and decides it wants to be a sanctuary city in defiance of Trump's edicts, I'm glad you agree they have the right to do that as well.
Yep. My first thought/reaction, exactly!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:17 PM
 
Location: Seattle
1,191 posts, read 258,289 times
Reputation: 1258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
There is not much of a "Free Press" anymore. It has been usurped by the LEFT and the technology masters of the universe. It is getting difficult to find certain stories as much of the MEDIA purposely omit them, or bury them. Then there is the spin (lying) to actually change the story if they do report it.

This is NOT the Government restricting Free Press which is what are laws protect us from, but private, very powerful entities, now more influential than Government.
Free press doesn't mean a politically "fair" press; it means a press free from government control that is able to publish its own opinions. You do know the first thing that a despot does after taking over, right? They take control of newspapers, TV, and radio stations. Can you name a despotic government with a free press?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top