Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"Why don't you join up and help dude? I served my time and i resent know it all chicken hawks who talk big and do nothing."
Worth repeating.
About 10,000x to every chickenhawk who squawks about military action.
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
Are you really that uncharitable, unschooled, and even idiotic?
Instead of a snarky remark, why don't you just clarify your position?
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
Why do we need new ones in this case when we could instead justifiably and effectively prosecute the responsible parties, what with this particular scenario being so rare?
A good point, seeming that the majority of both sides have slipped away from this observation.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Jim is sounding as out there (in the other direction) as Bird did 10 days ago.
But I believe the political spectrum is horseshoe shaped with the ends being closer than they are to the middle.
Uh, Jim,..... the world's oldest "democracy" is also the one with the best armed citizens; Switzerland!
Hearing Dingus talk about "we the people" makes me wonder if he knows we don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional democratic republic.
Two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch is a democracy.
In the US the lambs have (second amendment) rights too.
Johnboy said
Deaths by either are not exceptable.
Arguing with people that slaughter english is not acceptable,..
Apogeez said
Most any liberty-tard knows damn well that an 8 y/o using an Uzi is just not ok. Of course, there's a few that actually believe it is ok...but they are thankfully a small, psychotic percentage (that should be medicated and watched closely).
You are too late.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
As long as your faction is in the minority, no worries. The republican system of governance controls you. But, as Federalist 10 notes, when a faction gains the majority, that is the ONE and fatal threat to a rights-based government.
When a majority faction gains the ascendancy, the ONLY remedy left for rights-loving people is revolution. This is not a "threat." This is basic political philosophy.
I would not even bother to argue these points with people like you, as clearly you do not care about fair and charitable argumentation. But there are many lurkers who are of reasonable mind and who can discern correct principles when they are expressed.
I care deeply about fair and charitable argumentation, and feel genuinely educated by some of what you say, and much of what I have read elsewhere in response. What I do not care for, and will continue to challenge you on is your assertion that Natural Rights or Libertarianism are some form of consistent, universally accepted moral code on which no disagreement exists among any persons who have studied political philosophy as much as you. That’s simply egotistical bullsh#t. If it was that easy, the bill of rights would read something like: “Congress nor any state shall make no law that infringes on the natural rights of humans as described in the writings of .....”.
Your basic argument against certain proposed gun laws is that they might be democratic, legal, constitutional, and even effective, but since they don't comply with your personal exact moral interpretation of a certain political philosophy, simply should not be allowed. Unfortunately for you, natural law has neither judge to rule nor sheriff to enforce. I hope life doesn't deliver you too many more disappointments.
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
How else are you going to claim tyranny as a motive for the 2nd?
Seriously, this is too deep for you at present. If you honestly cared to educate yourself and get a foundation upon which to engage in a productive discussion, I would be happy to point you to some resources. Until then, there is no "answer" you are going to get. And once you have some basic background, you won't need someone on a ST thread to enlighten you.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
What I do not care for, and will continue to challenge you on is your assertion that Natural Rights or Libertarianism are some form of consistent, universally accepted moral code on which no disagreement exists among any persons who have studied political philosophy as much as you.
"on which no disagreement exists...." Are you serious? If you are reading me to be claiming anything close to that, then you you are injecting a lot of yourself or somebody else in there.
Philosophical libertarianism is indeed internally consistent, which is something that modern liberalism cannot sustain. So that's something. And intelligent people certainly do disagree on just about everything. So, "universally accepted" is absurd, and you know it. I've never even suggested much less claimed anything like that.
What I can say with assurance concerns the principles the founders (federalist and anti-federalists alike) were attempting to establish by force of law. They were fundamentally natural-law, libertarian principles.
Now, any large enough group of people CAN make fundamental changes to the principles of law that govern this nation. Yes, that is built right into the constitution. What that group cannot do is change what the rights actually are.
It comes down to a question I asked much earlier: DO you think that there ARE any inalienable rights? You did not answer, nor did anybody else.
If you say that there ARE, then I want to know what you think they are. And if you think that there ARE, then you are already finished as far as "natural law" or whatever you want to call it; you already agree that there are rights that transcend any form of government.
If you thing that there are NOT, then the nation you want to see this become is very, very scary indeed. Furthermore, you will have a huge historical problem, because I can point you to countless cases in which you will readily admit that there are human rights that necessarily transcend this or that form of government.
THIS government was founded in an attempt to protect certain inalienable rights. And when a majority faction is able to trample on enough of them, or on even a small subset in an egregious enough way, you WILL have a huge pile of rights-minded people rise up to overthrow (again) what has become tyrannical.
That’s simply egotistical bullsh#t. If it was that easy, the bill of rights would read something like: “Congress nor any state shall make no law that infringes on the natural rights of humans as described in the writings of .....”.
I'll go you one better. The bill of rights was staunchly resisted, not even supposed to exist at all, precisely BECAUSE of the confusions it introduced... the VERY confusion you yourself appear to suffer from.
These rights were PRESUMED by the founders, and had the anti-federalists (themselves believers in these very rights) not attempted to "say much less by saying more," the PRESUMPTION of those rights would not now be getting called into question.
Your basic argument against certain proposed gun laws is that they might be democratic, legal, constitutional, and even effective, but since they don't comply with your personal exact moral interpretation of a certain political philosophy, simply should not be allowed.
Utterly ridiculous. I have agreed with all sorts of proposed laws, including, most recently, the short slate proposed by HighTraverse. "Simply should not be allowed" is patently ridiculous, and I have said nothing of the sort.
You WILL find me VERY suspicious of granting the FEDS more powers that rightfully should be in the hands of the states. So, yes, I'll issue states' rights arguments in response to this or that proposal. But your sweeping claim is demonstrably wrong.
Unfortunately for you, natural law has neither judge to rule nor sheriff to enforce.
Wrong again. The ultimate "sheriff" is "we the people," where that group transcends governments, factions, and attempts to cow them into submission. Push that group hard enough, and ultimately you DO get revolution.
I hope life doesn't deliver you too many more disappointments.
Life is full of disappointments. It is also full of a lot of joy, which is what I focus on.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
If you cant articulate a logical response, you ought not spout off about it.
Seriously, not worth the effort for you. From your posts, it's clear that this would be a waste of effort.
You'll call that a punt, and I'll laugh.
Not everything can be properly explained in a forum setting, particularly not to everybody who might ask a question that the very phrasing of the question reveals that they don't know what they are asking.
Sorry.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 07:01am PT
|
I'll go you one better. The bill of rights was staunchly resisted, not even supposed to exist at all, precisely BECAUSE of the confusions it introduced... the VERY confusion you yourself appear to suffer from.
I fully realize that, but the bill of rights exists because a significant enough number were concerned about the confusion caused by its absence. They themselves couldn't agree on how natural rights would be implemented in practice, and that was for a government with very limited duties related to the daily lives of its citizens, a government with no power to regulate such messy issues as murder, violence, theft or even enslavement.
Call me a traitor again if you like, but Natural Rights do not exist as anything other than a philosophical concept. They are a form of morality, no more valid than any other morality. That doesn't mean that I don't believe in them as a great but incomplete foundation for human laws, but when you claim that your personal moral code, or even the moral code of hypocritical founding fathers is more important than the constitution or its laws, you are no different any religious nut who asserts heavenly authority to control what others do with their lives.
I simply don't believe that either classical Liberalism, or modern Liberalism in any pure form would be an effective form of Government. I don't believe that the pure form of any -ism except possibly pragmatism would lead to an effective Government. I believe in the Constitution of the United States as one of the best foundations for Government yet devised, I believe that it is not perfect, nor will it ever be.
I don't believe that 9 year old should be allowed to shoot Uzis, but neither do I believe it is anything close to the biggest gun-related imperfection in our laws.
TE
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 08:15am PT
|
NO. Not you, you won't even step up to the plate. Nobody will. Why?
I tell you why,
They're all just stupid sheep .......
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 08:26am PT
|
So, "universally accepted" is absurd, and you know it. I've never even suggested much less claimed anything like that.
Of course I know it's absurd, and every time you use any person's or any group's interpretation of what natural rights are, and impose them on me your argument becomes absurd.
Suppose your earlier comment read like this, I could have no criticism of it.
You and people like you might get enough of a majority faction together to ultimately make all sorts of constitutional changes. You'd have the ABILITY to become a majority faction (please, do look it up). But according to the philosophical concept of natural rights, you would NOT have the right. According to the philosophical concept of natural rights, The right of "the people" is NOT absolute!
But, no, you made an absolute statement that under your chosen moral principles, we don't have that right, even if the US constitution and our moral principles and the moral principles of 99.99% of the population were to say otherwise.
TE
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 08:48am PT
|
The whole gun hysteria was created on purpose by the tools behind the Obama administration.
It was a purposely created hysteria in perfect concert with the media.
You've all been 0wned .......
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 09:06am PT
|
The tide will turn, however slowly, and more sensible gun control will follow. The NRA is fighting a "hold the line" campaign reminiscent of Big Tobacco a few years ago.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 09:14am PT
|
Very shortly, there will be riders on horse back riding all the way across this country to deliver to Washington a list of grievances
The brainwashed anti gun nuts will smear you into the ground along with their controlled media and the stupid sheep will all babble along in unison.
They will create more hysteria thru their stupid think tanks.
You will be taken to the cleaners .....
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 09:31am PT
|
They themselves couldn't agree on how natural rights would be implemented in practice.
That is a very different issue than the idea that they couldn't even agree among themselves that there WERE natural rights that needed defending in some way. Implementation is always a bugaboo.
So, if we ARE going to even attempt a discussion on this front, we will need to have some very basic clarity, and that means that I will need to understand "where you are" on some basic points. I've asked you before, and I'll ask you this last time: Do you believe that there are ANY inalienable, negative rights? If so, what are they?
Without that starting point, there's really nowhere to go here.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 09:42am PT
|
"...and guys like TE love to pull figures out of the bum"
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 09:54am PT
|
Answered above about my beliefs on rights, but my point is that legally it doesn't matter a damn what you or I believe. Practically, it does matter what the majority, super majority and even a minority believe, but that doesn't make any of us morally correct, if there even is such a thing.
The ultimate "sheriff" is "we the people," where that group transcends governments, factions, and attempts to cow them into submission. Push that group hard enough, and ultimately you DO get revolution.
You see, at least that's a coherent argument against certain Gun Control measures. It's also a reasonable argument for Gun Control. You've made or pasted statistical arguments too, some of which were coherent, some of which were totally flawed, but at least your basis was clear.
TE
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 09:55am PT
|
Edited after misreading quote.
Ron, read again what I said about 99.99%, it was a hypothetical, Madbolter says it doesn't matter what any majority thinks or votes for, if it doesn't meet his moral code, we don't have the right to do it.
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 10:01am PT
|
run and hide behind the same canned response which amounts to "if I gotta explain it, then you wouldn't understand".
ROFL... I must be a prophet or something like that. Totally predictable.
Okay, look, you guys are asking like there's some clear, bright "line" over which the government crosses into tyranny. There is no such clear, bright line.
Furthermore, I deny your premise that defense against tyranny is the "backstop" argument for the second amendment. I've said repeatedly, and I'll say again: the second amendment PRESUMES the right to life, which implies the right of self-defense, which implies the right to possess and use the means necessary to defend against putative threats. Defense against tyranny is just one species of the right of self-defense. So, I simply deny that this tail-wagging-dog "account" is even remotely correct.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the founders all operated under a presumption of inalienable rights, the defense of which was the first priority of legitimate government. Having studied the alternatives, I am very confident that the founders were correct in that presumption. That is why you don't find me talking about these points in the subjunctive sense.
So, when you ask for a "definition of tyranny" and call for some account of when a government has crossed the line into tyranny that justifies or even calls for armed revolution, you do not realize what you are asking!
I'll take a stab at the former, but the latter is based upon both philosophical and historical confusion.
"Tyranny" is any government that exercises its powers in violation of the inalienable, negative rights of its citizens.
How MUCH violation is tyranny? Well, ANY! Legitimate government exists primarily to SECURE and DEFEND these rights. So ANY violation is tyranny.
Now you are probably seeing the point that even the best of intentions can fall down in practice. This is why it's easy to look at US history and find countless examples of falling down in practice.
The most basic problem arises when these practical failings are taken to be normative, such that the principled bar gets lowered to the level of our failings. When the founding PRINCIPLES start moving downward, that is when I get worried. Practice will always fall below the principles that guide us! So, pulling the principles down to meet practice guarantees a downward spiral into tyranny.
There is another way that tyranny emerges. That is when over generations a slow, imperceptible philosophical sea-change occurs. That is precisely what has happened in the US. As more and more people are ignorant of the founding principles, and, worse, they are ignorant of WHY those principles are indeed the correct ones, people start getting very "fluffy" about what government's purpose is, what legitimizes it, and, hence, what practices are even appropriate. Their very definition of "tyranny" gets fuzzy or even non-existent.
Consequently, as in the US revolutionary war, there was no clear, bright line that was "the start of the war." There were particular incidents that made it into the history books, and certain key battles demonstrated a "trend" toward revolution. But the bottom line is that the US government is presently FAR more tyrannical toward US citizens than ever was the British crown toward colonists. The colonists ultimately revolted over grievances far less egregious than the full-on systems of rights-abuses perpetrated by OUR government.
The revolution was not primarily about "grievances." Those tipped the balances, but many and complex factors came into play! And only about 1/3 of the colonists even supported separation from England. About another 1/3 opposed war with England and were staunch loyalists. And about another 1/3 didn't involve themselves in any way. So, a MINORITY of the colonists ultimately prevailed in both starting formal separation proceedings and in prosecuting the revolutionary war. Thus, as we see in other revolutions, a minority rises up to revolt over very complex factors of which "grievances" are but a part.
Thus, there is and CAN be no clear, bright line to such things. What would it take in the US? I have literally no idea! No idea is possible in principle. What would JUSTIFY open revolt? Well, in my opinion, we're far past that point. What would cause ME to join a revolt? Well, now we're back to a huge slate of very complex factors. I'm sure it's the same way with many other like-minded individuals. You don't just wake up one day and think, "That's it! I have enough! I'm going shooting at authority figures." It just doesn't work that way.
But there are well-publicized incidents that indicate a growing level of unrest among a subset of Americans, and what many people do not realize is how QUICKLY that low-level, bubbling "unrest" can coalesce into a rapid-organized and very determined rebellion.
ONE aspect of the second amendment was indeed to assure that Americans had the means readily at their disposal for such a rapidly-organized and determined rebellion to take place. At some point people WILL say, "give me liberty or give me death," and they will indeed be prepared to even LOSE on their feet than to live on their knees. What triggers that? I have no idea? What would cause me to join it? I have only vague ideas. Psychologically, there just are no clear, bright lines; and history demonstrates that fact.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 10:15am PT
|
madbolter1
Thanks for the time you put into your posts.
I always enjoy their informative contents ....
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!