Proof conservatives can never hit rock bottom
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-11-2013, 04:44 PM
RE: Proof conservatives can never hit rock bottom
(26-11-2013 04:24 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(26-11-2013 03:49 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I'm not a democrat, but I think I feel safe saying that most democrats don't want a monarchy/fascist state/dictatorship etc. While there is argument to be made that natural power tends to be for power to flow into fewer and fewer hands over time, and that we could get there quicker as an unintended consequence of a Democrat's wish, you could say the same of a Libertarian, it would just take longer to get to that point.

I don't follow. Say the country followed the Libertarian "bible" (the constitution) which states that the Federal government has a very limited set of enumerated powers, all of which are defending basic human rights, and none of which initiate coercion, and everything else is left to the states, and that all citizens are granted freedom of movement to relocate from one state to another with no barriers...

So how would that ever turn into an oppressive regime? Certainly the Federal government couldn't be oppressive if they followed the classic liberal (Libertarian) system, since the Federal government would have no power to use coercion. Now individual States _COULD_ become tyrannical and concentrate all the power in their respective capitals. But, since the Federal government guarantees freedom of mobility, the people would just leave and move to another state, leaving the tyrants with no subjects to oppress.

It seems to me that the libertarian system of Federalism could survive forever because it's impossible for power to be concentrated under this system, which ensures checks and balances.

(26-11-2013 03:49 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Also, while I agree that the war in Iraq wasn't on moral grounds, I would hardly call what happened there a 'genocide'. As a matter of fact I think calling it such is offensive.

Is it any more offensive than when the UN released a report condemning the US for killing 500,000 Iraqi children, and then when Secretary of State Madeline Albright was confronted with it, she acknowledged killing them, expressed zero remorse, and said "it was worth it", and when asked WHAT was actually accomplished that "was worth" killing half a million kids, should couldn't come up with one single positive thing that came out of it, implying that killing a generation of children was just done for the heck of it. In my book, killing half a million kids for no reason in a country of 30m is egregious enough to warrant the harshest condemnation words can muster, even if the literal definition "genocide" isn't met.

You're being intellectually dishonest.

If you follow all of the constitution, and not just the Bill of Rights, then your argument on coercion fails.

In times of upheavel, war, famine, etc. people tend to give more power to governments in reaction. This would be true America as well, and would be done at the Federal level as well as the state-level. Once power is given away it can only be taken back with blood. It is far from a fail-safe system.

The "Genocide" which the US committed...is full of holes as well. Not only is that number probably exaggerated, America is not to blame. What you are referring to is a sanction put on Iraq because Iraq's dictator was abusing his people. Supposedly this sanction caused hundreds of thousands of children to starve...you know what, that blood lies squarely on the shoulders of Iraq's government. Just because we might have possibly been able to prevent it by giving them what they wanted does not equate to us killing them.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2013, 05:01 PM
RE: Proof conservatives can never hit rock bottom
(26-11-2013 04:44 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  You're being intellectually dishonest.

If you follow all of the constitution, and not just the Bill of Rights, then your argument on coercion fails.

Sorry, I still don't understand. What part of the constitution are you referring to? The constitution states that the Federal government must never deviate from a set of enumerated powers and everything else is left to the States. So if that system were followed, how would the Federal government ever become tyrannical?

(26-11-2013 04:44 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  In times of upheavel, war, famine, etc. people tend to give more power to governments in reaction. This would be true America as well, and would be done at the Federal level as well as the state-level. Once power is given away it can only be taken back with blood. It is far from a fail-safe system.

Agreed, 1 million %. And that's my point. I agree with you people have been reactionary and voted in Congressmen who have transferred power to the Federal government which it does not have under the enumerated powers clause, and the Supreme Court hasn't done it's job of striking down those laws.

So I'm certainly not saying the path that the US has taken of abandoning the constitution is sustainable. In fact, I'm saying the opposite, which is that the continuous centralization and concentration of power WILL ultimately lead to tyranny.

My point was that _IF_ the country followed the Constitution, and, even in times of upheaval, never transferred more power to the Federal government than what the Constitution allows, how would the Federal government ever become tyrannical?

I'm making a fairly obvious point, along the lines of _IF_ a man cannot get a gun then he cannot shoot someone. And as far as I can tell you're counter argument is that men will always have guns and will always shoot people. In this case BOTH of us are correct. I agree with you that no government has been sustainable BECAUSE people give too much power to the government, I'm only pointing out the obvious that _IF_ people didn't do that, it wouldn't happen.

Remember my original post was about the Hunger Games. How liberals will see a movie depicting life in the future with all the power concentrated at the Federal government, which brutally oppresses the States (districts), and they'll comment about how terrible such a future would be, BUT, they advocate the very same policy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2013, 05:37 PM
RE: Proof conservatives can never hit rock bottom
Looks like this might turn into a 'here we go again' thread.

So could I ask, as a neutral observer, that we are careful with capitals?

E.g. there is a difference between "I'm not a democrat" and "I'm not a Democrat".

Thanks.

Also, there is a risk of the discussion getting side-tracked by misuse (then inevitable defensive clarifications) of terms e.g. "they advocate the very same policy"... there is a difference between principles and policies.

Cheers

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2013, 05:45 PM
RE: Proof conservatives can never hit rock bottom
(26-11-2013 05:37 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Also, there is a risk of the discussion getting side-tracked by misuse (then inevitable defensive clarifications) of terms e.g. "they advocate the very same policy"... there is a difference between principles and policies.

Can you expand? I was referring to the policy that coercive laws should be passed at the federal level vs. at the state/local level. That does seem to be an actual policy, not just a principle. And it seems an accurate statement given that all the laws they're pushing for, from Obamacare to minimum wage, are at the Federal level, with the power and decision-making in Washington DC--not dispersed to the local level.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2013, 06:02 PM
RE: Proof conservatives can never hit rock bottom
(26-11-2013 05:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(26-11-2013 04:44 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  You're being intellectually dishonest.

If you follow all of the constitution, and not just the Bill of Rights, then your argument on coercion fails.

Sorry, I still don't understand. What part of the constitution are you referring to? The constitution states that the Federal government must never deviate from a set of enumerated powers and everything else is left to the States. So if that system were followed, how would the Federal government ever become tyrannical?

Well, the Bill of Rights, which constitutes the first 10 sections (hate to call them amendments) describes what you are talking about, but as you undoubtedly know there have been many many amendments since then which do not do what you suggest. These vary wildly, everything from forcing people to pay income taxes to prohibiting the trade and manufacture of alcohol Certainly such amendments are not 'leaving things up to the states'.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2013, 06:15 PM
RE: Proof conservatives can never hit rock bottom
(26-11-2013 06:02 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Well, the Bill of Rights, which constitutes the first 10 sections (hate to call them amendments) describes what you are talking about, but as you undoubtedly know there have been many many amendments since then which do not do what you suggest. These vary wildly, everything from forcing people to pay income taxes to prohibiting the trade and manufacture of alcohol Certainly such amendments are not 'leaving things up to the states'.

Sure, I agree. The original spirit of the constitution and the bill of rights, namely a central government that plays a purely defensive role, is long gone, and now the federal government plays morality police, such as telling us what substances are prohibited. I wasn't trying to make a sophisticated point. Just saying that _IF_ we stuck to the original plan according to the founders, if we remained vigilant about making sure the federal government never obtained any powers other than the purely defensive enumerated powers, then it would be impossible to have a tyrannical federal government. That statement seems self-evident: if you don't let something ever get to be tyrannical, it never will be tyrannical, and if it does become such, it's because people let their guard down and allowed it to happen.

The only non-obvious point I was trying to make is that the same people who decry the oppression that results from too much concentrated, centralized power, are ALSO asking for more concentrated, centralized power. That 'wants more government' picture is so funny because it's so true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2013, 06:37 PM
RE: Proof conservatives can never hit rock bottom
(26-11-2013 06:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(26-11-2013 06:02 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Well, the Bill of Rights, which constitutes the first 10 sections (hate to call them amendments) describes what you are talking about, but as you undoubtedly know there have been many many amendments since then which do not do what you suggest. These vary wildly, everything from forcing people to pay income taxes to prohibiting the trade and manufacture of alcohol Certainly such amendments are not 'leaving things up to the states'.

Sure, I agree. The original spirit of the constitution and the bill of rights, namely a central government that plays a purely defensive role, is long gone, and now the federal government plays morality police, such as telling us what substances are prohibited. I wasn't trying to make a sophisticated point. Just saying that _IF_ we stuck to the original plan according to the founders, if we remained vigilant about making sure the federal government never obtained any powers other than the purely defensive enumerated powers, then it would be impossible to have a tyrannical federal government. That statement seems self-evident: if you don't let something ever get to be tyrannical, it never will be tyrannical, and if it does become such, it's because people let their guard down and allowed it to happen.

The only non-obvious point I was trying to make is that the same people who decry the oppression that results from too much concentrated, centralized power, are ALSO asking for more concentrated, centralized power. That 'wants more government' picture is so funny because it's so true.

Yeah, but that's an impossible "if". I agree it would be great IF we could do that, but we cannot. No system which had faulty factors (aka humans) will last indefinitely.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: