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.
You are being a bit dramatic, and also assuming that you know much more about me than you do.
I think many ordinances regulating what people can do on their own property, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of their neighbors, are silly. If you want to have five dogs in your house, or keep chickens in your backyard, or grow a vegetables in your front yard, that is your right. Other times, I think more should be done. There is a person in our neighborhood who, all summer long, every weekend, kindly provides us all with free entertainment, in the form of a very loud and very bad rock band that can be heard from blocks away. Are they within their rights to do so?
I would very much like to hear about all these alleged instances of people being locked up or killed (!?) for minor infractions like grass that is too tall. I think lots of people get locked up who should not, primarily for things like minor, nonviolent drug offenses, but to the best of my knowledge, people are only killed for murder. Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I am opposed to the death penalty, if for no other reason than the fact that people are sometimes falsely convicted.
You may not need laws telling you how to treat others, or imposing penalties if you harm them. Good for you. Unfortunately, there are those who are not so...scrupulous in their morality. What do we do with them? Independent, vigilante justice? What about cases where two people with conflicting views both feel that their rights are at stake? Someone has to decide. Who would you have it be?
Until you can answer these questions, no, I do not suffer from cognitive dissonance, and if that makes me a "statist," I guess I will own that label and wear it proudly.
AGAIN you have serious reading comprehension problems. Malum in se crimes are crime regardless of whether or not there is a law against the action or inaction because the action or inaction encroaches upon the rights or property of another. These are things people should be punished for doing.
Malum prohibitum crimes are only considered a crime because someone said so regardless of the fact that the action or inaction did not encroach upon another person's rights or property.
AGAIN you have serious reading comprehension problems. Malum in se crimes are crime regardless of whether or not there is a law against the action or inaction because the action or inaction encroaches upon the rights or property of another. These are things people should be punished for doing.
Malum prohibitum crimes are only considered a crime because someone said so regardless of the fact that the action or inaction did not encroach upon another person's rights or property.
For a free society that we supposedly live in, where liberty is getting to choose for ourselves and Freedom being getting to choose in the first place.
What works best to persuade free people with liberties to change?
Force, punishment and even death if you don't comply?
OR---------
Education, facts and dialogue, allowing to weight the pro's and con's and making our own decision, good or bad and deal with the consequences if it goes south and reap the rewards and satisfaction if it all works out?
What works best?
What creates resentment, violent push back and hate, that can last a lifetime?
Which is a representation of the "free state" and which the "police state"?
I'm a fan of rational persuasion.
Also gotta confess I'm a (gushing) fan of a healthy & functional Democracy. I like Robert Dahl's take on it:
"In his book, Democracy and Its Critics (1989), Dahl clarifies his view about democracy. No modern country meets the ideal of democracy, which is as a theoretical utopia. To reach the ideal requires meeting five criteria [1]:
Effective participation Citizens must have adequate and equal opportunities to form their preference and place questions on the public agenda and express reasons for one outcome over the other.
Voting equality at the decisive stage Each citizen must be assured his or her judgments will be counted as equal in weights to the judgments of others.
Enlightened understanding Citizens must enjoy ample and equal opportunities for discovering and affirming what choice would best serve their interests.
Control of the agenda Demos or people must have the opportunity to decide what political matters actually are and what should be brought up for deliberation.
Inclusiveness Equality must extend to all citizens within the state. Everyone has legitimate stake within the political process.
Instead, he calls politically advanced countries "polyarchies". Polyarchies have elected officials, free and fair elections, inclusive suffrage, rights to run for office, freedom of expression, alternative information and associational autonomy. Those institutions are a major advance in that they create multiple centers of political power.[2]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Dahl[/quote]
I'm re-quoting the Preamble section of the Declaration of Independence from your original post. This may or may not be 'stating the obvious' however here goes - this document is meant (as are most documents) to be read in its entirety to get at the full meaning. (Context is important as well but that may be another story ) So here follows the section referred to as the Preamble, which is preceded by an Introduction & followed by sections referred to as Indictment, Denunciation & followed by the Conclusion & Signatures section. I've included the Conclusion section here:
The underlined section of the Preamble indicates an intention to organize a new government & is followed by the word "Prudence". Prudence indicates the seriousness of the matters to be discussed - they did not take these matters lightly. The case for declaring independence is made in the Indictment & Denunciation sections, I believe they made a reasonable & rational case to do so. The words in regards to organizing a new government are less specifically clear (however imho reasonably & rationally expressed as well) by the words "as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness". They were only men & focused on achieving independence, they also had confidence that they would seek to create a new form of government that would seem most likely to effect their Safety & Happiness. A more perfect form rather than an entirely perfect one.
The bold section of the Conclusion indicates what, at that moment in time, seemed most likely to effect their Safety & Happiness. They spelled out the "Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, & establish Commerce" & then included "and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do."
This last seemed to indicate that they, at that moment in time, were not exactly sure what would be necessary to effect the safety & happiness of their new Country.
Long story short. They were only human & we are only human. They were 'pragmatic anarchists' & maybe we can follow their lead. Be reasonable, rational - think critically & creatively & so on.
I find it sadly laughable that you acknowledge the purpose of government is crystal clear... that is until you want to make your point that well they weren't crystal clear at saying they could impose upon society any rules they want, because well... their words just, "...seemed to indicate that they, at that moment in time, were not exactly sure what would be necessary to effect the safety & happiness of their new Country."
The Constitution was also crystal clear when it said the enumerated powers of the branches of government were their only powers. Crystal clear, yet just to be on the safe side they later included both the 9th and 10th amendments. Then there are the State Constitutions which, with no exception, also state words in a very similar form that powers not enumerated to the State are reserved to the people, yet that isn't what people on here want. They say it is what they want in the poll, then they say... well there are some things that force is the only way to deal with a situation. If that situation is a malum in se crime, then yes, force is warranted. If it is a malum prohibitum crime, it shouldn't be a crime at all.
By the way, the founding fathers and John Locke (who wrote the 2nd Treaties of Civil Government, the very basis on which the founding fathers acted to throw off a tyrannical government) were hardly anarchists. They were classical liberals (known today as Libertarians).
I find it sadly laughable that you acknowledge the purpose of government is crystal clear... that is until you want to make your point that well they weren't crystal clear at saying they could impose upon society any rules they want, because well... their words just, "...seemed to indicate that they, at that moment in time, were not exactly sure what would be necessary to effect the safety & happiness of their new Country."
The Constitution was also crystal clear when it said the enumerated powers of the branches of government were their only powers. Crystal clear, yet just to be on the safe side they later included both the 9th and 10th amendments. Then there are the State Constitutions which, with no exception, also state words in a very similar form that powers not enumerated to the State are reserved to the people, yet that isn't what people on here want. They say it is what they want in the poll, then they say... well there are some things that force is the only way to deal with a situation. If that situation is a malum in se crime, then yes, force is warranted. If it is a malum prohibitum crime, it shouldn't be a crime at all.
By the way, the founding fathers and John Locke (who wrote the 2nd Treaties of Civil Government, the very basis on which the founding fathers acted to throw off a tyrannical government) were hardly anarchists. They were classical liberals (known today as Libertarians).
Were the earliest designers of the Country men? Were they fallible? Did they make mistakes?
By calling them 'pragmatic anarchists' I meant only that they were attempting to form a better form of goverrment, the focus being on the pragmatic part. I don't think they were Gods, I don't think they saw themselves as such.
Were the earliest designers of the Country men? Were they fallible? Did they make mistakes?
By calling them 'pragmatic anarchists' I meant only that they were attempting to form a better form of goverrment, the focus being on the pragmatic part. I don't think they were Gods, I don't think they saw themselves as such.
They weren't anarchists at all. In each step, first the Articles of Confederation then the US Constitution, they established a government. That alone shows they were pro-government and not anarchist.
They weren't anarchists at all. In each step, first the Articles of Confederation then the US Constitution, they established a government. That alone shows they were pro-government and not anarchist.
Were they human? Were they fallible? Did they make mistakes? Were they prescient?
Any good liberal will tell you that it's education but in practice, they just put a gun on your head.
The difference between classical and progressive liberals, and it comes down to what they believe the role of government is.
A progressive liberal believes in using government to forcefully confiscate, via confiscatory taxation, money away from the wealthy individuals who earned it and then redistribute to the poor while congratulating themselves on their selflessness and castigating the person they stole from as greedy if they raised any objections.
A classical liberal who wishes for a more equitable income distribution would encourage the wealthy to donate their money to those in need.
In nearly every case, liberals, known for their intolerance support using the coercive power of the state to force society to be structured according to their will, and yet somehow they see themselves as good and just for doing so. Many don't understand they are doing this even as they rant "make the rich pay their fair share" which is using the government to confiscate money from those who earned it.
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.
I'm a (gushing) fan of a healthy & functional Democracy. I like Robert Dahl's take on it:
) So here follows the section referred to as the Preamble, which is preceded by an Introduction & followed by sections referred to as Indictment, Denunciation & followed by the Conclusion & Signatures section. I've included the Conclusion section here:
