Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Really? You really think it's insane to believe, as the founders did, in genuinely inalienable rights that can only be acknowledged and are never granted by any government's founding documents?
|
|
perswig
climber
|
|
...during my outdoor industry days, ...
JD, before I read the rest, my brain said "What an interesting and typically-Donini understated way to describe his time in SE Asia!"
Made me laugh. Thanks, and for your perspective as well.
Dale
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
I think its a moot point and has been for 200 and some odd years. George Washington settled it when he threw down on the Pennsylvania tax cheats.
What does that example have to do with my points about standing armies (to which you were supposedly replying)? Washington appealed to the states to call up militias, which was a legitimate approach to the issue! Washington honored states' rights in his appeal, and he employed no federal standing army.
I have repeatedly stated that I have NO problem with the feds flexing their muscles in constitutionally legitimate ways, just as Washington did. Washington's actions have exactly zero relevancy to my points about a vast, standing military.
I see the worldwide results of an out of control arms industry coupled with governmental fear of armed populations what I see is civil war and chaos, everywhere; the death of innocents.
I totally agree about the out of control arms industry insofar as you are talking about the mega-military/industrial-complex that furthers our "non-wars" of aggression and imperialism all over the world!
Regarding your line about "governmental fear of armed populations" leading to civil wars and the deaths of innocents, you'll have to provide examples that clearly show that "governmental fear of armed populations" being the proximate cause of all this supposed "chaos".
I think you give reason to insanity.
Okay, this is twice in two posts that you've called me insane. That's beyond the pale, even for you. You should back off, get sober, and get your frothing under control.
You guild escalation with principle but its naked fear that propels your perspective.
"Escalation with principle"? Oh, you mean like our founders did regarding England, and that over grievances far less odious than we face today from "our own" government? Or do you mean like the Scots did regarding England? Or do you mean like every other effort by human beings to throw off the tyranny of other human beings? "Escalation" must always be founded on principle, and all legitimate reformations and revolutions have "guilded escalation with principle."
"Naked fear"? ROFL!
Okay, is naked fear in contrast with partially-clothed fear? Or perhaps its in contrast with pornographically-explicit fear! Or perhaps its in contrast with Victorian-era-covered fear. I don't know. It's hard to see how naked fear is a particularly unworthy form of fear.
And you have never indicated why fear is a bad thing to begin with. After all, most "Americans" today are so afraid of terrorism that they happily submit to invasions of their privacy, including utterly unlawful searches and seizures, as long as the whole "homeland security" approach to life can keep them (in their own minds only) even a shred more "safe." If anybody is motivated by "naked fear," it is most "Americans," and what's pathetic about that fear is that it is both essentially unfounded and it sacrifices the most basic principles of legitimate government in its blind groping for a "security" that is a chimera.
What about the fear experienced in climbing? Is that bad or "naked" fear? Or do you respond to that fear BY holding to certain principles in spite of that fear that is indeed a very legitimate motivation?
Your "naked fear" line is purely pejorative and actually conveys no useful propositional content.
You've said so many times.
What does the "so" pick out in that sentence? Provide examples.
Well your fear is not worth the disintegration of my country.
What a hoot! I mean, that is a genuine knee-slapper! You are really on a roll here.
There's so much to say in response to this crap-packed line that I scarcely know where to begin.
Okay, I'll settle on this part: "my country." WHAT do you think "your country" even IS? You come off like the endless goofballs with their "Proud to be American" bumper stickers. But ask any ten of them what "being American" even means, and you'll get at least fifteen different answers. And those answers will be vague, hand-waving, unprincipled crap.
I was once at an air show, and one of the fighter pilots was addressing a gathered group of attendees. He said, "I'm in the air to protect your Sunday barbecues." There was some applause, and then I said, "I hope you are in the air to protect much more intangible and deeper things than barbecues." There was silence, with people turned staring malevolently at me. I said, "I get that you're basically saying 'way of life,' but even that is a chimera. I would hope that you recognize that you are protecting something far more fundamental that any of that." Again, silence, and then he lamely sputtered, "Yes, obviously, I fly to protect freedom."
Ackk, gag! Yeah, right! He has no idea what "freedom" even means, which is the same as the vast majority of present "Americans," including the ones sporting their bumper stickers.
And you don't either! I have NO idea what you think "your country" even is, and I bet you can't define it with a shred of rigor, because to do so with rigor, you'd have to appeal to the very foundational principles that you are so quick to dismiss to maintain the (sick) status quo. "Your country" has already disintegrated in every meaningful sense. It is corporate-owned, PAC-controlled, and even "your" money is literally worthless and manipulated by a "fed" that has NOTHING to do with the actual fed and has NONE of your best interests at heart.
"Your country"? What the hell is that???
And I don't give a damn about your so-called inalienable argument.
That much is crystal clear, and that fact reveals how utterly unprincipled you are in your (like most "Americans'") quest for the (sick and apathetic) status quo.
If you want to argue like a civilized person, fine. But your repeatedly calling me insane is childish and outlandish. Grow up, and see if you can find a principle worth dying for.
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
DMT, it isn't worth it to argue with a person that thinks guns and cars are on the same level whan it comes to murder or one that correlates children in school with inmates of prisons.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Ahh, you're really parsing the verbiage to wiggle around, aren't you?
If I say that you have an a55holish personality, I guess that I'm not actually calling you an a55hole, then, right?
Pretty ticky-tacky "distinction" coming from a guy who can't recognize important distinctions such as positive vs. negative rights.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
If it's arguing you want, words, their definition and how they're used in context, matter in the most fundamental way. The silence of lawers in this thread speaks louder than words. They spend a decade on education learning how to say something that has logic beyond emotion.
Simply not true. Several of my philosophy students have gone on to some of the best law schools in the country, such as UCLA, and have stayed in close touch with me. They have spent years telling me about the VAST difference in training regarding the use of verbiage between philosophy and law. Philosophy is about clarity to seek truth. Law literally teaches word games and sophistry to seek wins. "Debate" is not "argument," and "law" is not "philosophy."
What goes on on these threads is at best (and rarely) "debate" rather than argument; it seldom rises to even that low level. And the degree of verbal clarity here is a function of commonsense expectations. Nobody here wants to be subjected to philosophical rigor; I've tried it on occasion, and the resulting moaning and sniveling is epic.
The supposed silence of lawyers here can be a function of all sorts of things. Couple that with the fact that lawyers, even constitutional ones, are not trained to think about the underlying philosophy of legitimate government, and you have "experts" that are not actually experts and know that they are not. Look at legal debates before the SCOTUS, and you will see how the "legal expert" game is played. It's just lawyering (sophistry) regarding the constitution.
Your society has allowed soft intellectualism
I agree thus far! In fact, this society has encouraged that.
to think that state's rights are superior to federal doctrine and policy as it applies to all Americans in a national federation.
There is so much wrong with that statement that it is beyond the scope of this forum to address it. I'll touch on just a couple of things:
1) Nobody that I'm aware of here is suggesting that states' right trump federal "doctrine and policy" in anything like a sweeping sense. Our polity is much more nuanced than that! Our constitution was written to provide non-overlapping and limited powers for states and the federal government. If both operate within their constitutionally-defined realms, there should be little if any conflict. And from the start, the great fear of federalism (even among the federalists!) was a federal government that over time relentlessly usurped power unto itself.
2) The federal "doctrines and policies" were not supposed to "apply to all Americans" in anything like a direct sense. Our federal government was initially set up to have rare and little direct impact upon individual citizens. That direct impact was to come from the states and local governments. A big problem is that now the feds are DEEPLY nested into every tiny detail of individual lives.
Your federation flows from the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Okay
So if an individual is disenfranchised from the federation for whatever reason, are they now a state unto their self while still an obligated citizen ?
I don't know what you mean by "disenfranchised". Since word-meaning does matter, I can't answer your question without knowing some details about your intentions for that word.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
So now you are a Philosophy Professor after all. There's nothing like clarification to clear the air.
I've never denied that. I've denied being a community college professor.
You are right about law not being about philosophy but about winning. That's because the stakes are so high in legal matters.
You write that like you are providing an explanation. But there is no explanation in it. The stakes are always FAR higher in serious philosophy, with FAR more sweepingly positive or negative effects.
Not many people treat the courts like a cocktail party debate. the cost of being wrong is severe.
Wow. Just wow. If you think that what we're doing on these threads bears the slightest resemblance to serious philosophy. Oh, wow. This thread in particular is much populated by people that can't distinguish between their left and right butt cheeks, much less substantive philosophical distinctions.
And being "wrong" in law has nothing to do with truth or actual wrongness. The cost of LOSING can be severe, but that doesn't hold a candle to being philosophically WRONG, as in utterly wrong-headed nation-building on the basis of WRONG philosophy, such as we have repeatedly seen in quite recent history. Do you really think that legitimate nations are built by guys just jaw-jacking their pre-theoretical opinions at a cocktail party?
That's why all democracies have an adversarial system between the individual and the state. Good fences make good neighbours...
I'm trying to read that with charity, but I honestly cannot grasp what point you might be trying to make.
The silence of trained legal professionals here is because they spent enough time wading through the arguments of sentimentality in college to give a sh#t here.
Again, just wow! And you have a what shred of evidence to sustain that claim?
As for the disenfranchised, maybe getting thrown in jail for drunk driving equaling losing eligibility to vote is a sore point for people going forward. In their lives, f*#king up at 23 years old and paying the price is emotionally troublesome and federally problematic if tax is expected until death. That's taxation with removed representation.
"Emotionally troublesome"? Well, cry me a river!
Sorry, but you'll get no sympathy from me. There are lines you cross that there is no coming back from. The excuse that at 23 you didn't know better or understand the consequences is just a strong argument to say that even 21 year-olds have no business drinking.
The problem is that any age is going to be arbitrary, as maturity rates vary so wildly. The bigger problem is that our society has virtually given up on the idea of personal responsibility and real consequences.
You know, sleep around with every warm body you can, have a bunch of kids, then appeal to society to be "humane" and take care of all the kids you had that you didn't even THINK about how you were going to take care of yourself. The "poor" and "downtrodden" that can only soothe their troubles by breeding! A lot!
Then, of course don't raise those kids yourself with any sense of personal responsibility. Instead, convey to them that there IS no real personal responsibility, and meanwhile sue somebody for nicking yourself while shaving.
And it goes on and on. And generation after generation it gets clearer that NOBODY but "society" is really responsible for anything personal. And government gleefully steps in to TAKE responsibility, because it KNOWS that with that responsibility comes genuine POWER to be into the tiniest details of everybody's lives. And this is precisely what has happened to America during my own lifetime.
So, yeah, you drink and drive, and you are crossing a SERIOUS line! You get caught doing it, and I think that the penalties should be far harsher than they now are!
A couple of my good friends just a few months ago were hit by a drunk driver, and they are now both permanently brain-damaged. The one, the mother, was just forced to resign her job as a middle-school teacher because she can't keep her head straight and teach now. So her entire LIFE is ruined... forever... and the world has lost a great teacher, to have it be replaced by someone that will now be on the public dole: Wonderful productivity converted to someone who needs "society" to step in and take responsibility for the negligent and intentionally irresponsible actions of one person.
And imagine what it's like to have much of your MIND taken from you! You have enough left to be constantly reminded of what you've lost! TRY to imagine that, if you can.
And, what? I'm supposed to wring my hands in sympathy for the "poor drunk driver who made ONE mistake and then is 'disenfranchised' for life'"? What a sick joke! Can you be serious???
If there were ANY justice, that drunk driver would spend many years in prison, then get out and spend the rest of her life devoting a significant chunk of her paycheck to my friend and her daughter. When I say "significant," I mean a percentage, a high enough percentage to HURT every paycheck, so that EVERY day she can be reminded of what she did, just as my friends are EVERY day reminded of all that was taken from them... as if money could even BEGIN to compensate for that loss.
And, by the way, in what country does one drunk driving conviction keep you from voting for the rest of your life? It's not here in the USA. If that WERE one of the consequences, I'd cheer it on. You guys moan about the "epidemic of gun violence," much of which is not ABOUT guns at all but is instead about gangs and the causes of that life-choice. Meanwhile the real carnage is on the streets, and it is virtually 100% preventable. Let society view drunk driving as the utterly heinous, intentionally negligent, and selfish act that it is, and the penalties would soar while the incidence of it would plummet.
Oh, but the problem is that SO many of you hypocrites KNOW that you have often engaged in drunk driving and gotten away with it. So you can't get serious about pointing a finger at that crime (and crime it is). So you bemoan the guns while giving a pass to the criminals that daily and intentionally threaten us on the streets.
Sympathy for the poor drunk drivers? NOT!
As a matter of fact, let's imagine a little FILTER on further discussions here. The only people who get to discuss gun violence any further are those who have NEVER ONCE driven while impaired by drugs or alcohol.
Oh, wow... it suddenly got really quiet around here.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
And furthermore.....
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Way tooo much talk and not enough GUNS!!!!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Try it some time, you may find philosophy as an avenue of study and seemingly higher consequences, falls short of being effective when sentenced to time in prison.
Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while in prison.
King wrote the "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" while in jail.
Ghandi had tremendous influence from prison and changed a country.
Mandela wrote and changed a country from prison.
And the list goes on and on.
Philosophy transcends prison and can be even more effective when its ideas are stamped by the commitment to them exhibited by one imprisoned for them.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
Werner...what happen to your schmeizer and spiked helmet...?
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while in prison.
Bill Murray wrote "Mountaineering in Scotland" while in one of Hitler's prison camps.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Thank you for asking, Jim. You know, it's been so great my whole life to be a climber. I mean, it's really impossible to articulate the sweepingly positive effects climbing has had on my whole life.
It's all good! From bouldering to free climbing (although my level is much lower now) to aid climbing, it's all a blast. I'm sure that you know what I mean.
And, in general, the climbing community itself is a blast. We might disagree on lots of "dogma," but I have a LOT more respect for climbers in general than for the average person. That's why I like that that taco stand has these "politard" threads, because I like conversing with climbers on basically any topic, including (gasp) climbing. lol
You know, even the passion we bring to climbing affects the passion we bring to discussions, so it's good.
How about you?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Time and the speed that consumes it has become the force in deciding what matters.
SO true! And I find that the speed at which time is consumed is ever faster each year.
I'm about to have a birthday, and my wife is all jazzed and wanting to know what we should do on my "special day." LOL
My response: "How about let's just ignore the 'specialness' of it this time?"
Her response: A laugh and then, "No, you're too special to me. I love to celebrate when you came into the world." (Yikes!)
I would just ignore it as yet another day that will live in infamy. But, she is far too good to me and far better than I deserve. I really mean that. So, if it makes her happy to "celebrate" the banana peel under one of my feet getting ever more slippery, I'll happily contribute to her happiness.
And the next one will be upon me even faster. Soon, from my time-compressed perspective, my wife will be in a state of perpetual ecstasy as the "special days" pile up in quick succession.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2015 - 04:19am PT
|
madbolter posted Ahh, another of the sheep that (wrongly) believes that the Bill of Rights GRANTED the rights to which it refers.
Not granted, made explicit and protected. How do you reconcile your utopian white male viewpoint of constitutional rights with the clear history of oppression that the majority of US residents have endured? Even WITH the explicit right of free speech one could be arrested for any myriad of "obscenity" offenses in this country right up through the 70's. Were slaves "granted" freedom? Or were they just shackled by the limits of their own consciousness, ignorant to your enlightened viewpoint on the Constitution? Oh no right, they were tortured and murdered because the Constitution didn't explicitly ban slavery so wealthy white dudes were free to infer their Constitutional right to do whatever the hell they wanted to.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2015 - 09:59am PT
|
HighDesert, there is no doubt that "white males" have done terrible things. But don't single us out for special condemnation. It's the HUMAN condition to do terrible things.
It's not like white males were running around Africa with big butterfly nets capturing black people to be slaves. The African slaves were sold to Europeans by other Africans. Inter-tribal warfare has fueled the slave trade on every continent down through human history, and the vast majority of human societies in history have had a slave economy.
Even the white's treatment of the American Indians, atrocious as it was, was only doing to them on a grander scale what they had been doing to themselves forever before the Europeans arrived. Please see the attached picture I snapped from a museum in Nebraska. This is but one acknowledgement of the truth. Just as on the African continent, on the American continent inter-tribal warfare was furious and produced both death and enslavement.
I'm NOT saying that all these abuses are acceptable. But I AM tired of having "white males" singled out for special condemnation. "We" have done nothing that hasn't been done throughout history as just part of the evil that lives in HUMANS.
Now, it is of note that the constitution does not explicitly disallow every form of human evil. It is not a document designed to say, "You can't do this. You can't do that. Oh, and you also can't do this other thing." Instead, the constitution was written to frame the broad parameters of federal/state/individual relations, with a special eye cast to the protection of certain oft-abused, inalienable, negative rights. Having established protection of those, the constitution is silent about a wide range of other rights (and responsibilities).
The fact that the constitution does not, for example, explicitly define what a "human being" is (such as regarding the abortion issue) is actually a strength of it. It leaves a wide range of "cultural" and philosophical debates entirely alone. Thus, IF it can be established that a fetus is a human being, it will be taken to enjoy the same human rights as other human beings. If not, then, well, you have the present state of affairs.
Similarly, the slaves in this country (sadly and amazingly) were not taken to have human rights as human beings. The constitution was readable in terms of them having such rights, just as it is readable in terms of fetuses having such rights, and those rights are not disallowed by the constitution (the 3/5 issue was not about rights but about census). It is not a shortcoming of the constitution that, for example, fetuses are not defined as human beings; it is a strength.
So, I guess I'm not clear about what you think should be changed or acknowledged. And I deny the special condemnation of "white males" that has become fashionable. We've been evil! So has EVERY sort of human being down through history!
And the fact that the constitution recognizes certain rights does not mean that human beings do not have others that are not mentioned. What you can't take from how the constitution handles rights is the idea that rights are this "grand variable" that the constitution doesn't even try to handle correctly. Certain rights are explicitly protected, and others are presumed. Many are not mentioned at all.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2015 - 10:09am PT
|
And its been the same ever since; f*#k with the fed in some fundamental way and you will lose. The civil war merely reaffirmed what GW had already established; The Federal Government of the United States is the LAW OF THE LAND. And when it comes to taxes, you'd do well to fear.
I agree that a primary goal of the federalists was to establish a federal government that could tax. That is indeed one of its protected and legitimate powers. And the government should not fear its people when exercising its legitimate powers.
However, it is a HUGE step to get from there to the idea that the federal government should be all-powerful, with a standing military to enforce its every whim, having the people cowed and perpetually submitted to its exercise of power.
The way Washington handled the moonshiners is THE model of the feds exercising their power BY appealing to the states for the resources and ability to enforce a legitimate claim. The reason why this model is THE model is that this model requires the STATES to agree with the feds on a case by case basis that a particular enforcement action IS enforcement of a legitimate federal power!
That is why there is no corollary between your George Washington example and the current standing military, and it is not an example of the way that the feds currently throw their weight around on countless, countless issues over which they have NO legitimate power.
The fact that they CAN does not mean that they have the RIGHT to! And the fact that Americans ARE cowed by the feds and forcibly submitted to its MIGHT is a fundamental problem that the federalists really did try to obviate when writing the constitution.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2015 - 10:12am PT
|
The 10,000th post on this thread will have the same people arguing the same points. If it makes everyone feel good, by all means....carry on!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!