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.
What does gun reform have to do with the people? Gun reform merely takes power away from the people.
"To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party... the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat(working class) must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition... Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy." - Karl Marx
In scanning your quotes you've sourced a Marxist, an anarchist and a monarchist. Kind of having a hard time settling on a philosophy?
The problem with the world, is that men are imperfect. If men were perfect, then no government would be necessary. And the more imperfect men are, the more they need government.
"It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke
"Even despots accept the excellence of liberty. The simple truth is that they wish to keep it for themselves and promote the idea that no one else is at all worthy of it. Thus, our opinion of liberty does not reveal our differences but the relative value which we place on our fellow man. We can state with conviction, therefore, that a man's support for absolute government is in direct proportion to the contempt he feels for his country." - Alexis de Tocqueville
Political philosophies can be classed into two categories, "Utopian" and "Reactionary". Bentbow's argument is reactionary. It is doubtful that he actually wants to be ruled by a King. He doesn't pretend for a moment that a King could produce a utopia. He merely wonders if a King might be better than what we already have.
I mean, why exactly are monarchies bad? And why exactly would democracy be good? What problems does a Democracy actually solve? Why would a country be better-off being run by the rabble?
I mean, the colonists had been under a monarchy for nearly two-hundred years prior to the Revolutionary War, and so what? They had to pay slightly more for tea? The British didn't truly change their form of government until the mid-1800's and early 1900's. And they technically still have the royal family. So what?
Democracy has always failed in the past. Why? What is different about today than the past?
In my opinion, the main difference seems to be the result of what you can call the "mass-media", which has been useful in propagandizing the people and manufacturing consent.
My personal philosophy depends a lot on what I think is possible based on my observations of the behavior of others. My utopian philosophy is "voluntaryism". My reactionary philosophy has fluctuated from libertarianism to nationalism/tribalism to Constitutional-monarchy, and back again. In the case of nationalism, I even have sympathy for some of the Nazi's policies.
"Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery."
"In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits."
"We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land."
"We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order."
"We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race."
"The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young."
I see that the OP has declined to support his generalized statement, claiming that We the People have less liberty now than in the time of King George III. The argument seems to be that prior to the Declaration of Independence the inhabitants of the colonies enjoyed greater liberties.
Ah, well. I suspect the author (mainly Thomas Jefferson) of the Declaration of Independence would disagree. Mr. Jefferson and friends certainly thought that many 'liberties' were lost or nonexistent. Let us take a look at said document:
My, quite a list. I will note that one other factor was that one did not 'own' property, but held it at the 'sufferance of the King'. The King giveth, the king could take away.
However, I will admit, I have seen my fair share of people whom have lost their property due to failure to pay property taxes imposed by their local governments. So perhaps that is a wash. No one can truly 'own' property, if subjected to property taxes. Yet, last I saw, the Federal Government does not impose a property tax.
And, of course, we have the recent Supreme Court decision, Justice Thomas writing for the majority, stating that the police may simply stop a person walking down the street, ask for ID, and, if there be an outstanding arrest warrant, arrest said individual and then legally search and seize any property held by said individual, and send the individual to prison for possession of what is found.
See, I am being betrayed into making the OP's own argument for him!
However, until this past week, it would have been wholly illegal for the police to simply stop and a person and ask for ID, run a check on said person, and then use any evidence from said illegal search to convict the person. Said evidence would have been considered 'poisoned fruit' and hence inadmissible in a Court of Law. Our thanks to the conservative wing of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Of course, it was understood back in Colonial times that a person could be seized on any, or no, pretext, and searched. Hence the Fourth Amendment.
It was also understood back in the good old days of the King that the press was 'free', so long as it did not speak ill of the King or his Ministers. Hence the First Amendment. Ah, one also had an 'official' religion of England, with the King being the secular head of said religion. First Amendment yet again.
I frankly admit, I have not heard of any recent 'quartering of soldiers' in the homes of private individuals. I guess the Conservative wing of the Court will get around to addressing that issue in the future.
The King also had the habit of dissolving any colonial legislative body at his pleasure. While we have had (and may have even now) Presidents whom secretly desire this power, alas!, they do not.
We do still have the right to trial by jury, denied the colonials, again at the pleasure of the King.
Anyway, the Declaration of Independence is a good source for determination what liberties and freedoms the colonist felt they lacked.
As of yet, no examples of what rights have been lost have been given. I know why, but it's fun to be an ass so I'm going to point it out.
Certainly, some parallels could be made between now and the reason the revolution was fought. However, those who say parallels can be made rarely make the correct ones. Most start talking about political correctness or guns or something. But those have nothing to do with the revolution.
The colonists were dissatisfied with how taxes were being decided. It was a war about money. Elites of English society were deciding what was best for the colonies, and while the colonies sort of had a platform to express their dissatisfaction, there was no accountability and no change would be made. So, to keep the elites from owning too much political power, there was a war.
Now, while many talk about what the founders wanted and they attribute those views to various candidates, common examples are people like Ted Cruz or Ron Paul and now, for some reason, Donald Trump. But who really hammers the elites? I mean, Ron Paul did too, but really, it's a guy like Bernie Sanders, the anti-American Jewish communist.
But whatever. Let's make believe and pretend King George personally came here to make sure we couldn't talk about gay people are whatever.
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.
