Would You Change Anything? (Constitution, BoR)

Samurai - post #32

I guess many of my ideas might be characterized as libertarian - though they have little to do with the current "Libertarian" party. My ideas come from my experiences in life, the principles of my personal faith - christian, and the principles of the founding fathers and martin luther. Those involve essentially - martin luther (personal relationship with God as one understands him- ultimate freedom and ultimate responsibilty) : christian (first corinthians thirteen - why I live and what I choose to make my life about) : founding fathers (Declaration of Independence - a basic explanation of freedom and responsibility and government).

Small - l - libertarian probably comes mostly from the basic perspective/belief that if God gives us the choice to accept or reject him - which is the most important and consequential choice that anyone can ever make - then why should individuals not be free to make other lesser choices - so long as those choices do not directly involve the infringement of anothers liberty. Why sweat the small stuff.
 
1. People are by birth endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights - the right to choose, the right to believe in what the choose to believe, the right to life, the right to the product of their time, labor, and energy.
Click to expand...

The inalienable rights argument is a farce. Normally people quote Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Life - What right to life does a man drowning in the ocean have? How about two men starving on an island where only canabalism will save one of them. Which one's right to life is inalienable?

Liberty - An utter joke. The concept of such a highly valuable and easily lost item as Liberty being free is what has caused us to live in a society as messed up as it is. Everyone expects liberty but very few are willing to pay for it. What rigth to liberty does a loosing nation in a war have? What right to liberty does a woman abducted by a serial rapist have? NONE. Liberty is only a right so long as it is defended, the second it is not it is no longer a right. It has never and never will be inalienable.

The Pursuit of Happiness - As long as that pursuit is in my own mind I guess it can be inalienable. Lock me in a dungeon or toture me and I am still free to pursue happiness in my mind. Beyond that though it is as hollow as the rest. Only by defending such a right can it exist.

Man has no natural rights, only those that he both chooses to and succeeds in defending. A right "granted" but not defended is a privledge that may be taken by the government at will.

You stated "the right to choose, the right to believe in what the choose to believe, the right to life, the right to the product of their time, labor, and energy."

In my system you would have the "right" to choose. Choose to serve or do not choose to serve nobody is forcing you.

You can also choose what to believe in, but you can't force others to believe the same. Again, I don't see how my system opposes that.

Right to life has already been addressed.

Right to the product of your time and labor. You have that. Serve and the product of your time and labor is the right to vote. There would also be food, housing and some form of monetary compensation although that would be secondary and less than in the private sector. The product of your time and labor if you choose to serve is the vote. If you want to make MORE, or specifically something you value more, for your time and labor then sell it elsewhere. If you can convince others to pay you what you want then fine. Just becasue you EXPECT X for your time and labor though doesn't mean somebody else must pay you that.

Those who fought at the founding of this nation sacraficed a hell of alot more than I ask anyone to do. They did so willingly and if anyone had offerred them the minimal service I have proposed for the right to vote and control of their government they would have jumped on it. That so many look at the right to vote as a given birth right is the core of our problem.
 
yeesh...no way. no one in the military has a more important opinion than any civilian. serving only means that you served. it doesn't mean you're smarter, stronger, more honorable or that you've even made a notable contribution to society

No way. Without the right to vote this is not America.
 
There is not much to say if one feels the principles on which this country was founded, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, for which generations have bled and sacrificed, are a farce.

What is nonsensical is to confuse a right with the freedom to exercise it. The arguement that one does not have a right unless one is perfectly free to exercise it, is basically just a simple denial that there are/is such a thing as a right.

A right is an ethical and moral statement or principle - which is the basis on which one may determine what is right or wrong - what one is dedicated to living or dying for - what gives one's life value and meaning.

Therefore to say that one has no right to life is essentially to say that one does not have the ethical or moral right to own ones' life and to say that life in and of itself has no real value in this world.

Someone may seek to take your life and they may even suceed, that does not mean that you did/do not have the right to life or that they were wrong to take your life.

Sorry, what you express is exactly those values and beliefs that our founding fathers rejected and fought against.
 
What the founding fathers created though is quickly devolving into bread and circuses. There are already large voting blocks made up of people who contriubte nothing but vote for the politician who will redistribute as much wealth as possible to them. It is bad and rapidly getting worse. When the day comes that enough non-contributors are able to vote in enough politicians to cater to their every desire the system will collapse. How does anyone see that being avoided now?

The age of enlightenment that the FFs were at the forefront of stressed the worth of the common man. His capacity for good and his ability to achieve goals. There was a fair amount of idealism about how people would vote, politicians serve and justices rule. I think 200+ years of history are showing that eventually the more selfish and base nature of man comes to the forefront unless gaurded against. Man's darker side may not always be at the forefront in making decisions but it happens enough to trash the system.

Every founding father hoped those who cast their votes would be responsible, consider all the reprecussions, investigate the candidates and take their right seriously. That is not the case in an America where Al Sharpton arranges bus trips to the polls to turn out the vote for the candidate promising the most free stuff. Look at Louisiana, leading the nation in disasterous elections, and how they voted. You have morons in power who allowed horrendous death and destruction but because they promise the most free stuff they retain their seats.

There is no heresy in stating our system is broken and should be changed. There is nothing evil about doubting some of the FFs decisions.

If someone here can propose a system to overcome the impending disaster of Bread and Circuses Democracy which is fast approaching then please propose it. If I see it as a logical STABLE system I will be right on board. Our current system is unstable though. Nothing pulls it back into balance or gaurds against mob rule and mob mentality. What is to keep the non-contributing population from exceeding the contributing population and voting themselves whatever they want?
 
There is not much to say if one feels the principles on which this country was founded, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, for which generations have bled and sacrificed, are a farce.
Click to expand...

They are pretty words and I would say with utter confidence that none of the men who signed that document considerred any of those ideals "free." They understodd the sacrafice they would have to make to attain them and expected other Amercans to do the same. For a long time many did, but things have changed with the population over time. People do not understand that such items are never free, now they expect them as entitlements. Such service as I proposed was not envisioned as needed because none of those fine men could imagine Americans who had bled for their freedoms to reach a point where they were so commonly accepted and irresponsibly used.

I think that document is hallowed not because it promised "Fee Stuff!!!" but because it was a pledge by those men and a nation to fight for such rights. No Founding Father in 1776 considerred any of those "rights" to be free, today we do though.
 
It is bad and rapidly getting worse.
Click to expand...
In your opinion. Not everyone agrees that redistribution of wealth is a bad thing. You do. I do. But America is about freedom and the people are free to choose to live with socialized health care and welfare.

The bottom line remains that no soldier has "earned" the right to vote more than I have. When I fullfill my contract with the Corps I will not have earned the right to vote any more than anyone else. Serving the government has absolutely zero bearing on one's ability to recognize the responsibility of voting. If you want to base it on a contribution to society than the scientist that discovers a cure for a genetic ailment deserves far more votes than a ground pounder.

What's being sacrificed when someone signs up for the Navy and spends for years shuffling papers at BUPERS? It's a regular job that exists solely to support the military yet would you consider that service along the same lines as a rifleman in combat?
 
What the founding fathers created though is quickly devolving into bread and circuses.
Click to expand...
Which was to a large part why Senators were not originally elected by popular vote, but instead by the respective State Legislatures. That put a barrier between the people and the Senators, and had the effect of striking a balance between the "unwashed masses" represented by the directly elected members of the House and the "voices of reason" represented by the indirectly elected members of the Senate. With that in mind, one thing that I would change would be the repeal of the 17th Amendment.

Likewise, there is an argument amongst the so called "progressive" left to do away with the Electoral College for the President, going instead with a direct national popular vote. I oppose that for similar reasons. Doing so would remove the "balance of power" between the more "populous states" and the more "landed" states, having the effect of concentrating power to the more urban areas, such as the northeast which are solidly blue states. Naturally, the Left would like this. It does, however, relegate the more rural areas of the nation -- areas that tend to be more productive in goods produced -- to a second class status, not being particularly significant at the national executive level. That would lead towards the effect of having the populous areas in power and the productive areas not, and that would lead to the old definition of democracy where 2 wolves and a sheep are voting on what's for lunch. No, the current system seems strange but actually works fairly well at maintaining a balance of power.

Quote:
It is bad and rapidly getting worse.
In your opinion. Not everyone agrees that redistribution of wealth is a bad thing. You do. I do. But America is about freedom and the people are free to choose to live with socialized health care and welfare.
Click to expand...

I hold that it is fundamentally WRONG.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Wealth redistribution amounts to nothing more than theft by way of the ballot box. It does nothing more than encourage an ever growing class of parasites on the body of those members of society who are actually productive.

What it is, is like this:

I know that it is wrong to stalk those who have money to steal from them and rob them at gunpoint. Doing so will get me thrown in jail, or maybe shot in the act, and justly so.

So, rather than being productive and making my own money, and still being envious of those who have their their own money, I'll come up with another plan. I know! I'll get together with a bunch of like minded bodies and vote to enact laws that demand that those people give their money to the government and the government then gives us the money! And -- if those people refuse, then we'll use the government's monopoly on the legal use of force to FORCE them to cough up their money and give it to us via the government! And if they refuse them, then THEY'LL be the ones thrown in jail! The Perfect Scam!!!

Again, I say that morally speaking wealth redistribution is just THEFT BY THE BALLOT BOX. Repugnant.
 
We can change our constitution via two methods, one of which is a constitutional convention. This thread demonstrates the stupidity of calling a constitutional convention.

That said, my 2 cents is
1>repeal the amendment permitting the income tax
2>repeal the amendment allowing the federal reserve system
3>repeal the amendment permitting directing election of senators. Make senators employees of their states.

We already have the tools necessary to control the judiciary. Both parties find it convenient to have an activist judiciary. About the only adjustment necessary would be to get back into Mr. Peabody's time machine and go back to the beginning of the republic and snatch Marbury v Madison out of the hands of the court and tear it up.

Since we're in a fantasy world, let's put in a requirement to put a sunset date on all legislation. Let's also require a supermajority to increase taxes.

Actually, if you want to start a revolution in this country simply abolish withholding of taxes. Require everyone to write out a check each pay period for governmental services. That'll stir it up.
 
Actually, if you want to start a revolution in this country simply abolish withholding of taxes. Require everyone to write out a check each pay period for governmental services. That'll stir it up.
Click to expand...
Not a bad idea.
 
Which was to a large part why Senators were not originally elected by popular vote, but instead by the respective State Legislatures. That put a barrier between the people and the Senators, and had the effect of striking a balance between the "unwashed masses" represented by the directly elected members of the House and the "voices of reason" represented by the indirectly elected members of the Senate. With that in mind, one thing that I would change would be the repeal of the 17th Amendment.
Click to expand...

I agree, gb. Repeal of the 17th A would go a long way toward straightening this mess out. Some stronger wording of the 10th A in the original document would have helped also.

badbob
 
I hold that it is fundamentally WRONG.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. But that doesn't change the fact that people in this country have the right to vote for it and if the majority votes for it the rest of us are SOL. There is no protection against socialism. There is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly states that capitalism is the only economy the nation can use.
 
:(

What is so hard about understanding the distinction between a right and having the freedom to exercise a right.

A person may have the right to have children but not be able to have children.

A person may have the right to own property but not own property.


No one in this thread and certainly not me, has said that freedom is free.

Rights pre-exist their exercise.

A slave has to have the concept of freedom, of a right to own himself, before he can fight for his freedom.

Our rights as human beings are inherent in our very existance - they cannot be given or taken away - they are. Securing the ability to exercise those rights often comes at a high cost and demands great sacrifice.

Atoms, elemental particals, gravity, stars, galaxies, and our universe existed before we named them or began to understand them. So too, our rights, or responsibilities, have existed as long as we have existed - before we have named or defined them.

Governments or laws certainly don't create rights - just governments are instituted amongst men to secure their ability to exercise their rights.

Historically governments have been instituted amongst men to enslave and control other men. Even governments that initially had the purpose of being just and securing the freedom to exercise our god given inalienable inherent rights are typically perverted or thwarted in their purpose by men who are afraid of real freedom and who desire power or control, or the illusion of security over freedom and the exercise of liberty.

That reality does not in the least contradict the reality of rights and their existence. Individual rights and their concomitant responsibilities will only cease to exist when individuals cease to exist.

Without individual rights there cannot be individual responsibilty. In the war trials after WWII the saying went that, they were only following orders - that the state said that those people had no right to life or property and that the state and the powers that be, ordered that those people be deprived of their lives and property, as they had no right to them. It seems that the western powers rejected that twisted logic - and instead found that the individuals who choose to deprive others of their lives in violation of those others right to life to be responsible for their actions even though according to the state and the law at the time they were not responsible.

In other words there was a recognition that rights exist regardless of an individuals ability to exercise them and that rights exist regardless of a state or governments decision to legally refuse to recognize or honor them. And further, that individuals are therefore responsible for their actions and choices, beyond the law or the state. That a state or a law cannot absolve an individual of their moral responsibilties as human beings.

Rights, while inherent or god given, also by necessity imply a concomitant responsibilty. If one has the right to life then one has a responsibilty to care for and value that life. If one has a right to arms then one has a responsibilty to care for and use them responsibly. If one has a right to have childern then one has a responsibilty to take care of those children.

Scoff if you want, but freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose or an empty meaningless word - unless one believes in individual rights. It is such "pretty words" that have motivated men and women around the world through the ages to fight for freedom. People do not normally live for material things nor choose to die for soley or primarily material things.
They will live and die for ideas - things you can't see, things you can't materially possess - for the ability to act upon their choices - for the freedom to take responsibilty for their life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top