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.
Philosopher John Locke is generally recognized as the inspiration to the Founding Fathers. He owned shares in the Royal Africa Company, the corporation that purchased black slaves and transported them to British possessions. The slaves were treated well and allowed recreational activities which sometimes included target practice. In the event of an encounter with an enemy ship slaves commonly joined the crew in defending the ship. Lloyds of London, the primary insurer of slave cargoes, gave both plaques and monetary rewards to captains who maintained a low mortality rate.
With respect to voting, the Founding Fathers never believed that slaves or free blacks had political rights; their silence on the matter is deafening. But blacks in this country lived far better lives as valuable property than they do as citizens today. Compare a foetid city slum to the healthful environment of an antebellum plantation.
Happy, I think you need some serious help. I think in the darkness of your mind you are starting to get very confused. Or you are just trolling. I like to believe it is the latter.
Starting with the latter point : The "right to vote" (really the privilege) was tied to the LEGAL requirement for citizens to serve in the militia - to be obligated to train, fight and die, on command. Most if not all women would prefer not to have that burden.
(It's still part of the law.)
(Check out: Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, ... under 45 years of age who are ... CITIZENS of the United States...)
Over the years, folks were indoctrinated to believe voting was a "right" but it never was.
I don't care if it was written on Tutankhamun's pergament, this is rubbish. If you are a citizen, you should have the right to vote. If it wasn't written that way, it should have been. Otherwise, it just shows an elitist attitude among those who wrote it. Funny, 'cause most of them were serfs escaping a feudal repression of kings and queens in Europe.
I also think you are using quotes out of context. Furthermore, most of these laws were made in a different time. You can't cling to something JUST because it was written 200 years ago. The 2nd amendment for example was written when it took a minute to reload a musket. I doubt the founding fathers had 100 round assault rifles in mind. I am sure most of them are spinning in their graves when they see what mess owning so many weapons has caused. Weapons used to be TOOLS in the old West. You needed one 'cause the closes sheriff was 300 miles away and there was only one of him and hundreds of bad bandits lurking around, Indians on the war path etc. Today most people own WAY more guns that they ever need and it ain't for the reasons of 1850s or for self-protections from that proverbial thug - it is because they like guns and guns make them feel important and powerful.
You can say what you want, America was a lawless place where people lost lives just for looking at someone the wrong way. Alcoholism was a widespread disease on the frontier. Cattle barons overran little homesteaders, wars broke out over fences etc. Cruelty was EVERYWHERE. Most people that came over from Europe were ROUGH and HUNGRY and they could not fail. Read your history, it is full of schemes and scams - dishonest land bubbles, dishonest gold bubbles, towns that were sold to people but the town never existed etc. This had nothing to do with the pursuit of liberty and individual rights but with basic greed and dominance. From this laws were made to curb this kind of behavior. But your everyday American was always finding a new loophole to scheme and scam someone. So, more laws were made. But people got better and more sophisticated. Look at Bernie Madoff - even to this day there are schemes and dishonesty everywhere. What do you expect from a society built on the above? That everyone loves and respects each other? Nah, they all look over their respective shoulder, don't trust nobody and understand that it is a dog-eat-dog world out there. Well, guess what, a lot of people don't like living like that. They don't want to be on alert all the time. So, they start forming a"social contract" - they all chip in and they all reap the benefits (and they all take the losses). Laws now protect folks who are unwilling or unable to be armed and fight, people pay taxes to be protected by police and borders by army. It is not a perfect system BUT it's not like the 1820s were perfect either. Get off your high horse...
This country was built on pillage, grab, murder, scam. It was also built on hard work, blood, tears and honesty.
There are perfect reasons why unions appeared - workers were exploited by inhumane capitalists in pursue of more profit. There is NO incentive in a capitalist society to be nature friendly or people friendly. Look no further than your biggest corporations like Apple - they have no issues exporting all American jobs to China AND paying taxes in Luxembourg. They don't give a rip for this country. If Apple could turn Yellowstone into computer chips for to make profit, there would be no Yellowstone. If it wasn't Apple it would be their competitor. Thank God the government made it into a National Park. Big Bend National Park was a bunch of private land that stupid people grazed cattle on and shot eagles out of airplanes (because they thought eagles ate their goats or sheep or whatever). INow it is a national park to be enjoyed by many.
One of the MAJOR problems in society today is unequal representation of poor and middle class in D.C. as opposed to the corporate funded lobbyists. When 99% of all lobbyists work for a money source with vested interests in something, that something eventually ends up their way in the law. The government is just the executioner AND since most politicians are owned by corporate interests and money, you get what you get.....All you people foam about loss of rights and the oppressive government. 98% of the US population wears a voluntary tracking device - it is called a cell phone. Majority shops online, uses Google, buys Apple computers, shops at grocery chains for foods made in Mexico in some nameless farm by a nameless person. The government has nothing to do with that, it is YOU who has given up your freedom for convenience.
Please stop perpetuating the myth of the past. I love it for the fact that I could saddle up and ride across the Arizona territory into the sunset. What this picture leaves out is all the bandits, cattle men, drunkards etc. out there to rob me, leave me to the buzzards.
Read a book called "Miles from nowhere". There are a bunch of counties in United States today that fit within the definition of the frontier of 1890s - that is, counties with less than 2 people per square mile. For all practical purposes the laws and federal govt do not exist there. Please move there and post to us how life is for you when you don't know the locals, they don't want to have anything to do with you and the winter comes....
Spoken like someone who has either never served in the military, or has an agenda against it.
The US Military is an ALL VOLUNTEER force, not conscripts such as in North Korea where the indvidual is indoctrinated and brainwashed to worship the government as their unquestioned leader
What else do you call someone who goes 3,000 miles away into a foreign country to kill people they know nothing about, having no proof whatsoever about why they are there doing the killing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip
The UCMJ, (code of Military Justice, fyi) in fact states clearly that no soldier, sailor, marine or airmen is compelled to follow an unlawful order, such as killing their own parents
Just because the media represents our men and women in uniform as mindless automotons programmed to kill is just a characature aimed at promoting their distaste for those who selflessly put their lives on the line to protect this country from all enemies.
What else do you call someone who goes 3,000 miles away into a foreign country to kill people they know nothing about, having no proof whatsoever about why they are there doing the killing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip
Now our current president has no compunction about killing US Citizens abroad, perhaps you should be more worried about his ideals and what boundries he has if any...
Our previous President and Vice-President lied to the nation about the WMDs in Iraq, your non-automaton buddies who apparently have all this critical thinking capacity went in there on orders based on lies, did the killing and the occupation, yet both GWB, Chenney and Rummy are still rich and not behind bars for lost American and other lives, a lot of disabled veterans, countless trillions spent on a bogus war, torture and the total abandonment of the Geneva convention. Don't see you complaining about that. We scorched millions of acres of forests in Vietnam, lost tens of thousands of American lives, killed who knows how many Vietkong, all for a war that made no sense at all, it was an occupying war that we lost and the proof that it was not a "freedom war" for us is the fact that even after losing it we were/are still here and still OK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip
As for the Men and Women of our Armed Forces, I have no doubt they would do what is right and if ordered to attack the United States would probably depose whatever tyrant issued that order because their loyalty is to the country, not to any specific politician.
Oh, and there isn't going to be any "revolution" on any significant scale. The past couple of generations have been taught to bend over. And that's exactly what they will do. And the rest of us are too damned old. So we just DGAS anymore.
I agree with just about everything you say in your post,
The problem is that, because I have two children, and probably some grandchildren down the road, I have to GAS.
I don't care if it was written on Tutankhamun's pergament, this is rubbish. If you are a citizen, you should have the right to vote. If it wasn't written that way, it should have been. Otherwise, it just shows an elitist attitude among those who wrote it. Funny, 'cause most of them were serfs escaping a feudal repression of kings and queens in Europe.
While I agree with you in principle, I question whether in a practical sense (at our current point in history) it even matters. From my perspective, on a local level, yes, the voting has reflected the local attitudes and beliefs. But on a national level, we had two horrible choices and one other choice that would have been better, but didn't have a ghost of a chance.
I agree with just about everything you say in your post,
The problem is that, because I have two children, and probably some grandchildren down the road, I have to GAS.
Yes, I feel very sorry for anyone in future generations who believe in liberty. It's going to be very hard for them. And of course, typically, you can mention the concept of liberty to these younger folks and VERY few of them understand the concept--you may as well be speaking in Norwegian.
It has only been the past few years that I've really understood the absolute power that indoctrination has over most people (disguised as "education," of course... and letting the "experts" hold the power). Honestly, I don't know how I avoided indoctrination (at least most of it), because my generation is where it really started to take off. I guess it's that I've always been completely bull-headed, scoffed at "authority" (in a social sense), seldom believed anything anyone (especially in school) "taught" me when it came to non-factual interpretable information, refused to apologize for actions I did not take, and have always questioned everything--including the foundations of our culture, society, and civilization. Somewhere along the line I became a strong advocate for absolute liberty and an anti-compulsive-collectivist.
Arguing with those who do not believe in individual liberty is fruitless (although my passion seldom allows me not to)... and as I said, I feel sorry for those few who will still stand against leviathan-like coercive collectivism once we get a little farther down the road we are traveling.
While I agree with you in principle, I question whether in a practical sense (at our current point in history) it even matters. From my perspective, on a local level, yes, the voting has reflected the local attitudes and beliefs. But on a national level, we had two horrible choices and one other choice that would have been better, but didn't have a ghost of a chance.
There are a lot of local laws that constrict your liberties more severely than what the federal govt does or has done. Zoning is one example. Ordinances is another. My town of 2600 people has a local building code and a city marshal, the school taxes are high. Obviously it is the will of the people, on a local level. My wife and I don't have kids yet we pay local taxes for the local schools. The state of Texas charges a $90 "new resident tax" for all people who move from elsewhere and want to register a vehicle in the state. The state also mandates yearly inspections. And so on and so on. Nothing to do with the federal govt. Heck, in any town you can get a ticket for driving without a seat belt (personal decision) - how's that?
A lot of people do not understand this but the fight for your rights starts LOCALY. The federal govt has no control over the fact that your municipality has a law that says if you have a pool you must fence it so someone else's child doesn't drown in it (hey, why am I spending money because someone else is a bad parent? Doesn't that infringe upon my freedoms?).
You use google? Have a gmail account? facebook? Cell phone? If your answer to any of these was "yes" then you are being tracked and as we all know, all your information is sold to anyone with enough interest and money in it, as well as the fact that the govt needs just to send a letter to the company and get the info. Corporations sponsor politicians of both parties and hence get something in return, even a 6-yr old knows that YOU ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.
Yes, I feel very sorry for anyone in future generations who believe in liberty. It's going to be very hard for them. And of course, typically, you can mention the concept of liberty to these younger folks and VERY few of them understand the concept--you may as well be speaking in Norwegian.
It has only been the past few years that I've really understood the absolute power that indoctrination has over most people (disguised as "education," of course... and letting the "experts" hold the power). Honestly, I don't know how I avoided indoctrination (at least most of it), because my generation is where it really started to take off. I guess it's that I've always been completely bull-headed, scoffed at "authority" (in a social sense), seldom believed anything anyone (especially in school) "taught" me when it came to non-factual interpretable information, refused to apologize for actions I did not take, and have always questioned everything--including the foundations of our culture, society, and civilization. Somewhere along the line I became a strong advocate for absolute liberty and an anti-compulsive-collectivist.
Arguing with those who do not believe in individual liberty is fruitless (although my passion seldom allows me not to)... and as I said, I feel sorry for those few who will still stand against leviathan-like coercive collectivism once we get a little farther down the road we are traveling.
Not that I disagree with you BUT, what do you do in a society where the majority WANTS a social contract where everyone chips in and spreads the risks for the purposes of shared benefits? Do you infringe upon their collective freedom of the same choice if they believe that society benefits come at expense of individual liberties?
There are a lot of local laws that constrict your liberties more severely than what the federal govt does or has done. Zoning is one example. Ordinances is another. My town of 2600 people has a local building code and a city marshal, the school taxes are high. Obviously it is the will of the people, on a local level. My wife and I don't have kids yet we pay local taxes for the local schools. The state of Texas charges a $90 "new resident tax" for all people who move from elsewhere and want to register a vehicle in the state. The state also mandates yearly inspections. And so on and so on. Nothing to do with the federal govt. Heck, in any town you can get a ticket for driving without a seat belt (personal decision) - how's that?
Yes, this is all true. I didn't mean to imply that I always agree with local politics. But they do reflect my area's mindset far better than on a national level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ognend
A lot of people do not understand this but the fight for your rights starts LOCALY. The federal govt has no control over the fact that your municipality has a law that says if you have a pool you must fence it so someone else's child doesn't drown in it (hey, why am I spending money because someone else is a bad parent? Doesn't that infringe upon my freedoms?).
I agree with this. Nobody should be on your property to begin with... and if they are, they should do so at their own risk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ognend
You use google? Have a gmail account? facebook? Cell phone? If your answer to any of these was "yes" then you are being tracked and as we all know, all your information is sold to anyone with enough interest and money in it, as well as the fact that the govt needs just to send a letter to the company and get the info. Corporations sponsor politicians of both parties and hence get something in return, even a 6-yr old knows that YOU ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.
OD
No, no, no, and... kinda (I have one, but use it perhaps two or three times per month). I'm no fan of corporations at all. I believe they shouldn't exist. But... corporations are a government-borne concept. I'd say the government sort of came up with a Frankenstein with that idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ognend
Not that I disagree with you BUT, what do you do in a society where the majority WANTS a social contract where everyone chips in and spreads the risks for the purposes of shared benefits? Do you infringe upon their collective freedom of the same choice if they believe that society benefits come at expense of individual liberties?
OD
I have nothing against collectivism, per se. But I do have a huge problem with mandatory collectivism. I have a problem with mandatory anything-ism. I strongly believe that an individual should have the choice to either have a hive mentality, or not. We could learn a lot from nature: we have wasps, bees, ants, etc which are collectivists. Then we have animals such as the grizzly bear, jaguar, and oarfish, which are not. All are highly successful. One size does not fit all. Neither should it in our society. People, more and more, demand conformity. In my view, that is plain wrong and not much different than a form of slavery.
Let's put it this way: I am definitely an introvert/individualist (there are things I do, think, and believe that would curl people's toenails even on this forum--I'm sure I'd be a pariah). If I were to demand that everyone on the planet become an individualist or introvert (let's assume I had the power to do so), would it be any more wrong of me than it would for others to demand the opposite? Can you imagine the hell that life would become for an extrovert or collectivist to be plopped in a situation where they had no contact with others or where they had no authority structure/hierarchy/network to look up to? That's no more a hell than someone like me experiences as part of a hive. It simply doesn't work. Choice is the best policy.
As always, when I say choice, I mean the ability to not only choose the option, but accept the potential risk and consequences of the choice/option. That comes with the territory in my opinion--because if someone chooses Plan X and is not willing to accept the risks/outcomes/benefits of Plan X, then they are not truly an individual. One thing about me that nearly nobody would agree with is that I do not believe in saving someone from their own stupidity and I do not believe in stopping someone who wishes to commit suicide via his/her choices (or literally, for that matter).
Not that I disagree with you BUT, what do you do in a society where the majority WANTS a social contract where everyone chips in and spreads the risks for the purposes of shared benefits? Do you infringe upon their collective freedom of the same choice if they believe that society benefits come at expense of individual liberties?
OD
But that is NOT our society because everyone is not chipping in.
The majority want only a select group to "chip in" to finance all the social reforms they are demanding.
It's more like "tax them, not me" and "cut their program, not mine".
There's nothing SHARED about that is there ?
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.
