Role of government (continuation from "right to secede thread)

[SocialEngineer]

Role of government (continuation from "right to secede" thread)

Wouldn't you agree that this has nothing to do with "Freedoms" at all, particularly not the "freedoms" of a "few" compared to the "freedoms" of the whole? While you can say you "stand by" your original statement, yet what you described does not really apply to "freedoms", much less the freedoms of the few limiting the freedoms of the whole.

The few are not limiting the rights of the whole by their "freedoms" at all. The freedoms of the few are not what is being promoted here.

This is simply government legislation engaged in dictating winners and losers, in arenas that government has no business being involved in, and is inherently corrupt and tyrannous.

It depends on how you define freedom. If freedom means having no rules against the unlimited accumulation and application of individual power, the result is a society where individuals can accumulate enough power to become threats to the individual sovereignty of their fellow citizens. If our freedoms end at the point that the freedoms of our fellow citizens begin, then if government does not preserve that balance of power between citizens, then government is not truly protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I'm going to use the term "social engineering" again in this context, and I'll hope you will understand the true meaning I am trying to convey. In engineering terms (not social engineering, just ENGINEERING), a system is stable when it reaches an equilibrium point over time, and a system is unstable when it does not reach equilibrium. Having a society where a single individual can achieve unlimited power is an admirable ideology in theory, but without any checks and balances on individual power, the ability of the individual to trample the rights of their fellow citizen is as great as the ability of an unlimited government.

Does that mean that we have to choose between an unlimited government and unlimited private economic interests having control over our lives? No. All we need is a system of laws that preserves the balance of power between individuals in society, and protects life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of all people, whether they be rich, poor, or whatever.

The most effective means of preserving that is with a stable free market, and with a government that is based on making decisions under the motivation of protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of ALL classes of people.

A stable free market is an economy where market competition and consumer choice determine winners and losers. Competitors increase their wealth by providing goods and services, and consumers have free and informed choice between competitors. Threats to this system include monopoly or oligopoly, because competition is not adequately forcing market competitors to improve their products to survive. other threats are artificial limits to consumer choice, like allowing the government or your employer to choose your health insurance for you. For the market to work, the consumer has to make the choice.

Also, if individuals are able to create wealth without adding value to the economy, the money they accumulate isn't a reflection of their contribution to the economic system. Hedge funds and speculating are dangerous to the economy because they allow for individuals to increase their wealth without adding value.

Computer based trading is additionally dangerous, because once an individual's interactions in the economy actually start to cause ripples in the price of commodities that they can manipulate for profit without having to rely on external market forces, it creates a positive feedback loop that allows for nearly unlimited wealth to be created without even participating in the real economy.

Government should not be allowed to place a limit on how much a person can earn. Without captains of industry like Sam Walton, Bill Gates, Edison, and without large, stable companies like GE and Wal-Mart, we wouldn't have the lifestyle we have today. But government SHOULD be able to protect society by creating laws that restrict the ability of the individual to destabilize the economy for personal gain. The rights of the individual end at the ability to cause harm to the rest of society.

The free market is the gateway to the pursuit of happiness for society. It should be the goal of government to make barriers to entry into the marketplace as low as practical. Huge regulatory structures that can only be borne by large companies is not only unnecessary in a free market where informed consumer choice is protected and enforced, but they also prevent individuals from introducing new business models. "Social mobility" is something of a loaded term in our partisan landscape, because it's used as a weapon to try to impose equal outcome over equal opportunity. But it is important that the economy be as open as we can make it, so that we can maximize the individual's ability to participate in it, and succeed or fail on their own merits. Protecting the free market is truly protecting the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of society.

 

[Master PO]

Re: Role of government (continuation from "right to secede" thread)

It depends on how you define freedom. If freedom means having no rules against the unlimited accumulation and application of individual power, the result is a society where individuals can accumulate enough power to become threats to the individual sovereignty of their fellow citizens. If our freedoms end at the point that the freedoms of our fellow citizens begin, then if government does not preserve that balance of power between citizens, then government is not truly protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I'm going to use the term "social engineering" again in this context, and I'll hope you will understand the true meaning I am trying to convey. In engineering terms (not social engineering, just ENGINEERING), a system is stable when it reaches an equilibrium point over time, and a system is unstable when it does not reach equilibrium. Having a society where a single individual can achieve unlimited power is an admirable ideology in theory, but without any checks and balances on individual power, the ability of the individual to trample the rights of their fellow citizen is as great as the ability of an unlimited government.

Does that mean that we have to choose between an unlimited government and unlimited private economic interests having control over our lives? No. All we need is a system of laws that preserves the balance of power between individuals in society, and protects life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of all people, whether they be rich, poor, or whatever.

The most effective means of preserving that is with a stable free market, and with a government that is based on making decisions under the motivation of protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of ALL classes of people.

A stable free market is an economy where market competition and consumer choice determine winners and losers. Competitors increase their wealth by providing goods and services, and consumers have free and informed choice between competitors. Threats to this system include monopoly or oligopoly, because competition is not adequately forcing market competitors to improve their products to survive. other threats are artificial limits to consumer choice, like allowing the government or your employer to choose your health insurance for you. For the market to work, the consumer has to make the choice.

Also, if individuals are able to create wealth without adding value to the economy, the money they accumulate isn't a reflection of their contribution to the economic system. Hedge funds and speculating are dangerous to the economy because they allow for individuals to increase their wealth without adding value.

Computer based trading is additionally dangerous, because once an individual's interactions in the economy actually start to cause ripples in the price of commodities that they can manipulate for profit without having to rely on external market forces, it creates a positive feedback loop that allows for nearly unlimited wealth to be created without even participating in the real economy.

Government should not be allowed to place a limit on how much a person can earn. Without captains of industry like Sam Walton, Bill Gates, Edison, and without large, stable companies like GE and Wal-Mart, we wouldn't have the lifestyle we have today. But government SHOULD be able to protect society by creating laws that restrict the ability of the individual to destabilize the economy for personal gain. The rights of the individual end at the ability to cause harm to the rest of society.

The free market is the gateway to the pursuit of happiness for society. It should be the goal of government to make barriers to entry into the marketplace as low as practical. Huge regulatory structures that can only be borne by large companies is not only unnecessary in a free market where informed consumer choice is protected and enforced, but they also prevent individuals from introducing new business models. "Social mobility" is something of a loaded term in our partisan landscape, because it's used as a weapon to try to impose equal outcome over equal opportunity. But it is important that the economy be as open as we can make it, so that we can maximize the individual's ability to participate in it, and succeed or fail on their own merits. Protecting the free market is truly protecting the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of society.

i read what you have stated here and there's a lot of common sense

i would say in just a few words, that if government needs power to protect the people on particular things which have manifested becuase of the change in times, our economy, then fine but do it the proper way by following the constitution and getting approval of the states for such action.

many people like myself are not against government ,becuase they are government, but becuase they dont follow the law of land, they demand the people and business do.

the idea of government just ceasing power and doing things to people and business turns my stomach.

 

[SocialEngineer]

Re: Role of government (continuation from "right to secede" thread)

i read what you have stated here and there's a lot of common sense

i would say in just a few words, that if government needs power to protect the people on particular things which have manifested becuase of the change in times, our economy, then fine but do it the proper way by following the constitution and getting approval of the states for such action.

many people like myself are not against government ,becuase they are government, but becuase they dont follow the law of land, they demand the people and business do.

the idea of government just ceasing power and doing things to people and business turns my stomach.

I completely agree. The only thing that protects our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is a balance of power between individuals, and between the people and the government. Each of us has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but we all have the individual duty to protect those things, both for ourselves, and for our fellow citizens. The individual is the source of power, and the individual is also the ultimate source of that responsibility.

No set of laws can be written to govern a person with no sense of duty to society, and cause them to be productive citizens. The purpose of laws is to create enough feedback against irresponsible actions to prevent individuals from engaging in actions that affect society negatively.

People are only human, and sometimes we can't even see where our actions are detrimental. In a system as complex as a society's economy, an individual participant can do something that causes the system to become unstable without even knowing about it. Rich people are not evil. They see a means of using the economic system to use the wealth they have to gain more. There's nothing inherently malicious about that. It only creates problems when those actions cause the economy to become unstable, preventing others in society from participating in the pursuit of their own happiness.

If we would stop playing this **** stupid game of class warfare, and understand that people are people, we could come to an understanding that would allow for the problems to be fixed. Yes, the wealthy have used their power to change the laws in a way that limits the social mobility of the rest of society. That's their bad, and they should reverse that. If they truly want to solve the problems that have been created, they should use their economic power to restore choice and competition in the free market, both in the economy, and in our government.

If there are people here who have the real political and economic power to affect change, here is what I would suggest to you to reestablish a stable society. These changes would force you to give up large amounts of your ability to manipulate society, but the changes would establish solid feedback mechanisms against corruption that will allow our republic to be a stable and just society that truly protects life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

1. Stabilize the economy by eliminating positive feedback loops.

If you can create money out of thin air simply by manipulating the stock market, the result is that money becomes meaningless as a medium of exchange, and the commodities market becomes a dangerous weapon that threatens the economy in the hands of the irresponsible, instead of a tool for the legitimate creation of value in the economy. Computer trading allows for manipulation of the economy based on millisecond response times that beat the flow of information through the system. It is not consistent with the concept of informed choice and competition, and should therefore be regulated. I would suggest that stocks be restricted from sale for three minutes after any public announcement on the part of the company. I would also suggest that any stock purchased be restricted from being sold again until the next fiscal quarter. This would eliminate the ability of the participant to manipulate the transient price of stocks to create wealth without creating value.

If you can create wealth without creating value, the economy is not working properly. Hedge funds pay the investor not when a company succeeds, but when it fails. The whole idea of having money in a society is to reflect individual contribution. Creating wealth as a result of economic failure encourages economic failure when it's easier to scuttle the company for profit than it is to run the company for profit. Hedge funds are a destabilizing force in the economy, and should be illegal. If you don't want to lose money, don't let your company fail.

2. Money is not speech.

The exchange of economic power for political power is called bribery. It's illegal to give a judge a million dollars to find in your favor in a court case, and yet it is perfectly legal to pay millions of dollars, and spend nearly unlimited amounts of money on propaganda to get someone elected to office. "Freedom of Speech" means the freedom to advocate with your own voice, not the unlimited ability to use your economic power to influence government. Speech is protected because it is the ability of the individual to influence society on the merits of their opinions. Speech should always be unlimited. The ability to use economic power should not be unlimited. Money is power. Money is not speech.

The solution to the problem is to publically finance political campaigns. Distribution of campaign funds should be based on voter registration. Any political party that achieves 10% voter registration should receive an equal portion of campaign funds. This creates a dynamic where new parties can emerge when existing parties fail to meet expectations, while providing a benchmark for popular support that new parties must reach to validate their participation.

Mass media is not free speech. It is expensive speech. When the civil discourse is dominated by mass media, the parties that control the agenda are able to manipulate the agenda to their advantage. Government protects the free and independent press from government corruption, but it does not protect it from the corruption of private economic interests. One of the most fundamentally harmful things in our society is use of the mass media by the people that own it to distract people from the real problems in society by keeping the arguing about the little stuff, and misdirecting the blame for the big stuff. You have to stop doing that. The law should demand that ownership of radio or cable news media preclude that individual from owning stake in other private interests, just as the law prevents the government from owning the media. The press should be free and independent from ALL special interest influence, not only that of the government.

Does this mean that the media should be not-for-profit? Hell no. The media should be able to run advertisements, and being in the media industry should be lucrative as hell. It should be profitable to share information with the world. It just shouldn't be profitable to lie. Right now, it's profitable for GE to have MSNBC push for a green agenda, and promote the Democratic party because they make wind turbines and all sorts of other green tech. Does that make green tech bad, or GE evil? Of course not. It just means that MSNBC can't be trusted to portray that particular issue without bias. The same goes for every media outlet that is owned by a special interest. The freedom of speech does not mandate the right of an individual to establish a stranglehold on the entire civil discourse, to the point that nobody else can get a word in edgewise.

These are the things that need to change in our society to truly protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Ultimate sovereignty and ultimate responsibility lies in the hands of the individual, and those individuals in our society with the power to make these changes must be the ones to make them. None of us individually can force these changes. They must be universally accepted and adopted by both rich and poor on their merits.

 

[SocialEngineer]

Re: Role of government (continuation from "right to secede" thread)

Also, in response to your primary point, which I may have originally missed, I agree that the government should not pass new federal laws that lie outside the Constitution's mandate. I think that we do need some new federal laws establishing the principles I cited, but I think that any of them that do not fall clearly within the mandates of government enumerated in the Constitution should require a constitutional amendment to justify.

I think that protecting the free market is the only REAL action justified by the interstate commerce clause, so I think that most of the economic laws could be accomplished without having the need to write an amendment. The only amendments likely to be required would be one clearly defining the distinction between free speech, and the unlimited use of money to influence government, protecting the former, and criminalizing the latter.

 

[Master PO]

Re: Role of government (continuation from "right to secede" thread)

Also, in response to your primary point, which I may have originally missed, I agree that the government should not pass new federal laws that lie outside the Constitution's mandate. I think that we do need some new federal laws establishing the principles I cited, but I think that any of them that do not fall clearly within the mandates of government enumerated in the Constitution should require a constitutional amendment to justify.

I think that protecting the free market is the only REAL action justified by the interstate commerce clause, so I think that most of the economic laws could be accomplished without having the need to write an amendment. The only amendments likely to be required would be one clearly defining the distinction between free speech, and the unlimited use of money to influence government, protecting the former, and criminalizing the latter.

actually the commerce clause has been abused by government, it was never meant to regulate commerce inside of the states, but to regulate among the states.

to regulate among was how the founders solved the problems of the articles of confederation, states during that time were engaging in trade wars and barriers with each other causing commerce to grind to a halt.

if we as a people stuck to natural rights, and civil privileges instead, of trying to create rights, calling them human rights, civil rights, we would have less problems

 

[SocialEngineer]

Re: Role of government (continuation from "right to secede" thread)

Nothing you've said above conflicts with this country's founding pricniple, nor with what I myself have said.

What does conflict with this country's founding principle, is the government dictating what rights are, and engineering society - and that's all you.

I never said that government should dictate what your rights are. Government can not define your rights. It can only take away your rights.

Does that mean there should be no government, so that everyone can be free? That's the fundamental principle of anarchy, and there are people who feel that way. They're wrong for the very reason you are wrong. Government exists to protect individual sovereignty by defining and enforcing the boundaries of that sovereignty in a way that creates a balance of power between sovereign citizens.

Nowhere do your fundamental liberties involve you benefiting from another's labor, or property, nor is anything I've said indicative of such.

What you've created, both in the paragraph above and below, are strawmen arguments entirely of your own making, and nothing I've said.

Of course they are. I made them to illustrate the need for laws that restrict the sovereignty of the individual.

If I was a truly free and sovereign individual, I would be free to kill you for any reason I thought was appropriate, and you would be free to kill me, without any consequences other than those motivated by revenge on the part of our respective loved ones (because they should be free to seek it). Government exists to define the boundaries of our freedoms by saying that I'm not allowed to kill you unless you're trying to kill me.

So long as these laws apply to everyone, the government that that society chooses should be allowed to make any law deemed necessary to establish those boundaries, and the boundaries should be based on that society's values and principles. That is what lies at the heart of popular sovereignty.

The difference between popular sovereignty and Marxist populism, is that popular sovereignty is a concept, where populism is a methodology. The concept of popular sovereignty can be implemented using a number of different methods, such as a Constitutional representative republic where democracy is limited to the ability to select representatives. Populism is the raw appeal to "majority rules", and Marxism is a government based on mob rule and the short-sighted whims of the populace, and is extremely dangerous to society when the populace allows its self to be manipulated by powerful special interests, as our society is today.

That's why I view our Constitution as such a powerful feat of social engineering. It allows us to exploit the positive qualities of popular sovereignty by allowing us to elect our leaders, while creating negative feedback against unbridled populism by requiring that the government pass a Constitutional amendment to increase its mandate. I think you and I will agree that the primary reason for so many problems in society today is that our government does not follow this process as they should.

 

[SocialEngineer]

Re: Role of government (continuation from "right to secede" thread)

actually the commerce clause has been abused by government, it was never meant to regulate commerce inside of the states, but to regulate among the states.

to regulate among was how the founders solved the problems of the articles of confederation, states during that time were engaging in trade wars and barriers with each other causing commerce to grind to a halt.

I agree completely. The interstate commerce clause is designed only to establish rules that provide a level playing field. The founders saw that some states would seek to manipulate their advantages over other states, and that private interests would manipulate competition between the states to leverage advantages that caused long term instability for short term gain. It happened a lot at the time with powerful states like Virginia muscling around the smaller states, and the East India company threatening to relocate from state to state if the states didn't provide them with overly-generous policies regarding taxation and regulation. The interstate commerce clause is supposed to provide a balance between letting states compete to attract business, while allowing the federal government to step in and make sure that that competition didn't get out of hand to where it caused problems in the economy.

if we as a people stuck to natural rights, and civil privileges instead, of trying to create rights, calling them human rights, civil rights, we would have less problems

That's a semantics argument, and the words you use to make it are so loaded that it could mean a million things to a million different people. But I will agree that government's only job is to step in when one person's liberty and pursuit of happiness becomes detrimental to the ability of others to enjoy their own.

 

[Master PO]

Re: Role of government (continuation from "right to secede" thread)

I agree completely. The interstate commerce clause is designed only to establish rules that provide a level playing field. The founders saw that some states would seek to manipulate their advantages over other states, and that private interests would manipulate competition between the states to leverage advantages that caused long term instability for short term gain. It happened a lot at the time with powerful states like Virginia muscling around the smaller states, and the East India company threatening to relocate from state to state if the states didn't provide them with overly-generous policies regarding taxation and regulation. The interstate commerce clause is supposed to provide a balance between letting states compete to attract business, while allowing the federal government to step in and make sure that that competition didn't get out of hand to where it caused problems in the economy.

That's a semantics argument, and the words you use to make it are so loaded that it could mean a million things to a million different people. But I will agree that government's only job is to step in when one person's liberty and pursuit of happiness becomes detrimental to the ability of others to enjoy their own.

actually no, their are only natural rights and privileges..

their no no human rights, civil rights, or any other rights.

rights are an absolute, and are natural, to our body.

privileges are dispensed by government, they can be freely given or have strings attached to them.

those who say i have civil rights per the 14th are saying in reality...."i get my privileges from government"...becuase government cannot create a right, only privileges, and they can be withdrawn by government, as the repeal of the 14th.

the BOR natrual rights.....cannot be repealed, many think it can, and that's false.

 

[SocialEngineer]

Re: Role of government (continuation from "right to secede" thread)

actually no, their are only natural rights and privileges..

their no no human rights, civil rights, or any other rights.

rights are an absolute, and are natural, to our body.

privileges are dispensed by government, they can be freely given or have strings attached to them.

those who say i have civil rights per the 14th are saying in reality...."i get my privileges from government"...becuase government cannot create a right, only privileges, and they can be withdrawn by government, as the repeal of the 14th.

the BOR natrual rights.....cannot be repealed, many think it can, its that's false.

I agree with you. Government can only restrict rights, not grant them. The distinction between a right and a privilege is an important part of the discourse on the issue. Thank you for providing this clarification.

Although I will argue that no right is absolute.

 

[Master PO]

Re: Role of government (continuation from "right to secede" thread)

I agree with you. Government can only restrict rights, not grant them. The distinction between a right and a privilege is an important part of the discourse on the issue. Thank you for providing this clarification.

they can only restrict your rights when you violate criminal law or regulatory law, which could endanger the health and safety of the people.

discrimination laws are unconstitutional as is affirmative action and minimum wage.

citizens/ business cannot violate the u.s. constitution

 

[Goshin]

Re: Role of government (continuation from "right to secede" thread)

I completely agree. The only thing that protects our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is a balance of power between individuals, and between the people and the government. Each of us has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but we all have the individual duty to protect those things, both for ourselves, and for our fellow citizens. The individual is the source of power, and the individual is also the ultimate source of that responsibility.

No set of laws can be written to govern a person with no sense of duty to society, and cause them to be productive citizens. The purpose of laws is to create enough feedback against irresponsible actions to prevent individuals from engaging in actions that affect society negatively.

People are only human, and sometimes we can't even see where our actions are detrimental. In a system as complex as a society's economy, an individual participant can do something that causes the system to become unstable without even knowing about it. Rich people are not evil. They see a means of using the economic system to use the wealth they have to gain more. There's nothing inherently malicious about that. It only creates problems when those actions cause the economy to become unstable, preventing others in society from participating in the pursuit of their own happiness.

If we would stop playing this **** stupid game of class warfare, and understand that people are people, we could come to an understanding that would allow for the problems to be fixed. Yes, the wealthy have used their power to change the laws in a way that limits the social mobility of the rest of society. That's their bad, and they should reverse that. If they truly want to solve the problems that have been created, they should use their economic power to restore choice and competition in the free market, both in the economy, and in our government.

If there are people here who have the real political and economic power to affect change, here is what I would suggest to you to reestablish a stable society. These changes would force you to give up large amounts of your ability to manipulate society, but the changes would establish solid feedback mechanisms against corruption that will allow our republic to be a stable and just society that truly protects life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

1. Stabilize the economy by eliminating positive feedback loops.

If you can create money out of thin air simply by manipulating the stock market, the result is that money becomes meaningless as a medium of exchange, and the commodities market becomes a dangerous weapon that threatens the economy in the hands of the irresponsible, instead of a tool for the legitimate creation of value in the economy. Computer trading allows for manipulation of the economy based on millisecond response times that beat the flow of information through the system. It is not consistent with the concept of informed choice and competition, and should therefore be regulated. I would suggest that stocks be restricted from sale for three minutes after any public announcement on the part of the company. I would also suggest that any stock purchased be restricted from being sold again until the next fiscal quarter. This would eliminate the ability of the participant to manipulate the transient price of stocks to create wealth without creating value.

If you can create wealth without creating value, the economy is not working properly. Hedge funds pay the investor not when a company succeeds, but when it fails. The whole idea of having money in a society is to reflect individual contribution. Creating wealth as a result of economic failure encourages economic failure when it's easier to scuttle the company for profit than it is to run the company for profit. Hedge funds are a destabilizing force in the economy, and should be illegal. If you don't want to lose money, don't let your company fail.

2. Money is not speech.

The exchange of economic power for political power is called bribery. It's illegal to give a judge a million dollars to find in your favor in a court case, and yet it is perfectly legal to pay millions of dollars, and spend nearly unlimited amounts of money on propaganda to get someone elected to office. "Freedom of Speech" means the freedom to advocate with your own voice, not the unlimited ability to use your economic power to influence government. Speech is protected because it is the ability of the individual to influence society on the merits of their opinions. Speech should always be unlimited. The ability to use economic power should not be unlimited. Money is power. Money is not speech.

The solution to the problem is to publically finance political campaigns. Distribution of campaign funds should be based on voter registration. Any political party that achieves 10% voter registration should receive an equal portion of campaign funds. This creates a dynamic where new parties can emerge when existing parties fail to meet expectations, while providing a benchmark for popular support that new parties must reach to validate their participation.

Mass media is not free speech. It is expensive speech. When the civil discourse is dominated by mass media, the parties that control the agenda are able to manipulate the agenda to their advantage. Government protects the free and independent press from government corruption, but it does not protect it from the corruption of private economic interests. One of the most fundamentally harmful things in our society is use of the mass media by the people that own it to distract people from the real problems in society by keeping the arguing about the little stuff, and misdirecting the blame for the big stuff. You have to stop doing that. The law should demand that ownership of radio or cable news media preclude that individual from owning stake in other private interests, just as the law prevents the government from owning the media. The press should be free and independent from ALL special interest influence, not only that of the government.

Does this mean that the media should be not-for-profit? Hell no. The media should be able to run advertisements, and being in the media industry should be lucrative as hell. It should be profitable to share information with the world. It just shouldn't be profitable to lie. Right now, it's profitable for GE to have MSNBC push for a green agenda, and promote the Democratic party because they make wind turbines and all sorts of other green tech. Does that make green tech bad, or GE evil? Of course not. It just means that MSNBC can't be trusted to portray that particular issue without bias. The same goes for every media outlet that is owned by a special interest. The freedom of speech does not mandate the right of an individual to establish a stranglehold on the entire civil discourse, to the point that nobody else can get a word in edgewise.

These are the things that need to change in our society to truly protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Ultimate sovereignty and ultimate responsibility lies in the hands of the individual, and those individuals in our society with the power to make these changes must be the ones to make them. None of us individually can force these changes. They must be universally accepted and adopted by both rich and poor on their merits.

Well said. You have, in this thread, adeptly enumerated many of the reasons why I am a Centrist, rather than adhering to any extreme of ideology.

Unbridled freedom ultimately results in too much power in too few hands... just as excessive government does. The only major difference is whether those hands are politician's or plutocrats'... and in either case the average person suffers from the imbalance of power.


The function of government is to protect the liberty of all individuals under its jurisdiction... sometimes this means imposing some restrictions on those individuals or organizations that have accumulated so much power (often via extreme wealth and economic clout) that they are able to distort the political process and abuse the average citizen because of the imbalance. These are among the reasons I support a reasonable gradient of progressive tax, and a certain amount of necessary regulation of the market and the major players therein.

 

[SocialEngineer]

Re: Role of government (continuation from "right to secede" thread)

they can only restrict your rights when you violate criminal law or regulatory law, which could endanger the health and safety of the people.

Government's job is not to protect health or safety. Its job is to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

discrimination laws are unconstitutional as is affirmative action and minimum wage.

You are correct that the federal government has no mandate to define those boundaries under the Constitution (at least, to my knowledge).

citizens/ business cannot violate the u.s. constitution

The Constitution doesn't define what citizens or businesses can or can't do. The people can do whatever they want to do within the confines of what they establish for themselves in their respective governments. Those governments originate from the people, and only the thing defined in the federal government's mandate should be administrated by the government of those people at that federal level.

 

[Master PO]

Re: Role of government (continuation from "right to secede" thread)

Government's job is not to protect health or safety. Its job is to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

health and safety in the sense people dont die, this falls on state government, federal .. in the sense of defense

You are correct that the federal government has no mandate to define those boundaries under the Constitution (at least, to my knowledge).

by discrimination, government is setting its own code of moral behavior, and government is not here to make you moral or immoral.

this is why we are having problems over property ownership, people/government think they can exercise rights/ powers on other peoples property.

The Constitution doesn't define what citizens or businesses can or can't do. The people can do whatever they want to do within the confines of what they establish for themselves in their respective governments. Those governments originate from the people, and only the thing defined in the federal government's mandate should be administrated by the government of those people at that federal level.

constitutions are written for governments only, setting up them and delegating powers to them, and keep those powers limited.

nowhere in our constitution does it speak to the people / business, and it did not even speak to the states until the reconstitution amendments....and the USSC ruled states must obey the constitution from now on.

the people never get together to write a constitution which limits themselves.

 

[SocialEngineer]

Re: Role of government (continuation from "right to secede" thread)

The function of government is to protect the liberty of all individuals under its jurisdiction... sometimes this means imposing some restrictions on those individuals or organizations that have accumulated so much power (often via extreme wealth and economic clout) that they are able to distort the political process and abuse the average citizen because of the imbalance. These are among the reasons I support a reasonable gradient of progressive tax, and a certain amount of necessary regulation of the market and the major players therein.

The exchange of economic power for political power is only dangerous because it creates a positive feedback loop. The more money you get, the more power you're able to wield, and the more you are able to influence government to change the rules that govern the economy in a way that earns you more money. It is not dangerous for people to have huge amounts of money. It is dangerous for people to be able to use that money to reshape the rules of government to suit them.

I also favor slightly progressive taxes for a number of reasons, the greatest of which is that it provides negative feedback against the unlimited accumulation of wealth that causes long-term economic problems. However, that is an engineering principle that I value because it is stabilizing, not because I think it's beneficial to redistribute wealth to people that have not earned it.

I think that the only justification for redistribution of wealth is to provide seed money for people to invest in themselves when they do not otherwise have the means. Paying for education in inner cities is good because it provides the opportunity for people to succeed on their merits, without simply providing a lifestyle that is not earned. I think that education is a privilege, but I also believe that it is in society's interest to provide this privilege as universally as possible to maximize peoples' opportunity to pursue happiness.

However, I don't think that education should be funded at the federal level, because there is no mandate for it. I don't think there should be a mandate for it, because I believe that individuals should not be denied the right to coordinate at local and state levels to determine what is in their own best interests. I personally favor school vouchers and a publically funded, privately operated education system, that takes advantage of all the qualities of free markets, while adding the additional benefit of equal opportunity through the judicious use of income redistribution.

In general, I believe that all forms of wealth redistribution should be administrated at the lowest level of government that is practical to the individuals involved in the decision. This gives the individual the greatest amount of control over the process, and prevents corrupting influences such as populism from running away at a level that is to far away from the people to be controlled.

 

[SocialEngineer]

Re: Role of government (continuation from "right to secede" thread)

This is why we are having problems over property ownership, people/government think they can exercise rights/ powers on other peoples property.

The government can exercise rights and powers over property if the people make that part of the government's mandate. The reason it's problematic now is because it's not part of the government's mandate, and there's no way to provide feedback against populist whim because we're letting the government do whatever it wants without going through the process to amend the Constitution.

The amendment process isn't meant to keep the government from solving problems for people. It's meant to force the nation to collectively have a rational, cool-headed discussion on the issue and come to a broad consensus before acting.

The Constitution that limits ourselves is split between every level of local, state and federal laws we implement for ourselves, and the ultimate responsibility for restraint lies within the individual. The only reason we need laws at all is to step in when conflicts arise between sovereign individuals.

 

[Trip]

Re: Role of government (continuation from "right to secede" thread)

It depends on how you define freedom. If freedom means having no rules against the unlimited accumulation and application of individual power, the result is a society where individuals can accumulate enough power to become threats to the individual sovereignty of their fellow citizens. If our freedoms end at the point that the freedoms of our fellow citizens begin, then if government does not preserve that balance of power between citizens, then government is not truly protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

First off, I object to you taking an ongoing discussion from another thread to this thread. Why? Because it allows you to sever this discussion from the fact that you've already engaged in Orwellian abuse of terms, and their application, previously exposed in that other discussion.

I myself don't "define freedom", however you have distorted the definition and application of freedom to your own ends, when "freedom" is not used to define the boundaries nor objectives of government by the founders, nor is your abuse of that term applied.

Freedom is not hte goal of our government, but rather individual rights and liberties are. Freedom for everyone is the byproduct of those individual rights.

There is no "balance of power" involved in freedom, any more so than the range of one's rights involves the exercise of any sort of power.

As previously demonstrated, these ideas you promote are all Marxist ideologies, and incompatible with this country's principles.

I'm going to use the term "social engineering" again in this context, and I'll hope you will understand the true meaning I am trying to convey. In engineering terms (not social engineering, just ENGINEERING), a system is stable when it reaches an equilibrium point over time, and a system is unstable when it does not reach equilibrium. Having a society where a single individual can achieve unlimited power is an admirable ideology in theory, but without any checks and balances on individual power, the ability of the individual to trample the rights of their fellow citizen is as great as the ability of an unlimited government.

What you're "going to" do, is apply further Orwellian distortion, this time to the understanding of "social engineering", in an attempt to white wash it, so as to cleanse Marxist ideology and allow government dictate of the terms of freedom, and the playing field itself.

Engineering and Social Engineering have nothing in common. Engineering is dictated by the laws of physical science involving real cause and effect. Social engineering is dictated by whims of a ruling class in order to fabricate a Utopian society having no basis in reality, with disregard to real outcome.

Does that mean that we have to choose between an unlimited government and unlimited private economic interests having control over our lives? No. All we need is a system of laws that preserves the balance of power between individuals in society, and protects life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of all people, whether they be rich, poor, or whatever.

The most effective means of preserving that is with a stable free market, and with a government that is based on making decisions under the motivation of protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of ALL classes of people.

History has proven that the best means of preserving a stable free market, is prohibiting the overarching authority of a federal government from dictating what that market is, and dictating what values should be by positive influence, and negative prohbition on the otherwise free citizens operating each for their optimal choices.

A stable free market is an economy where market competition and consumer choice determine winners and losers. Competitors increase their wealth by providing goods and services, and consumers have free and informed choice between competitors. Threats to this system include monopoly or oligopoly, because competition is not adequately forcing market competitors to improve their products to survive. other threats are artificial limits to consumer choice, like allowing the government or your employer to choose your health insurance for you. For the market to work, the consumer has to make the choice.

Yes, the above is all true, but it is not the effect of your distortion of the word "freedom" nor your corruption of "social engineering" to be nothing but the same as rational "engineering", which are both falsehoods and antithetical to this nation's founding principles.

Your indication of a valid conclusion congruent with this country's principles, above, and pretending such is derived from false presumptions <ie "freedom" and "social engineering">, is only an attempt to validate what later rationale you will most certainly provide, for government dictate of the environment., and eventually picking "winners and losers" by dictation of what the game is. This is nothing more than a roundabout means of validating the corruption we have now.

Also, if individuals are able to create wealth without adding value to the economy, the money they accumulate isn't a reflection of their contribution to the economic system. Hedge funds and speculating are dangerous to the economy because they allow for individuals to increase their wealth without adding value.

Computer based trading is additionally dangerous, because once an individual's interactions in the economy actually start to cause ripples in the price of commodities that they can manipulate for profit without having to rely on external market forces, it creates a positive feedback loop that allows for nearly unlimited wealth to be created without even participating in the real economy.

The phrases "adding value to the economy" and "contribution to the economic system", above, both involve introduction of further subjective evaluations, which will quite likely be resolved by you to resolve ton the government making these decisions itself, when under a Capitalist free Market system that accumulation of wealth would be the result of the cumulative "votes" of every individual in the society to sustain that wealth.

The validity, or lack thereof, of commodity or stock trading, does not hinge on them being "computer based", but rather the fact that this speculation has been tied to the real price of the properties, influencing the real cost paid by consumers, for no real reason. This is no more valid than making one's income by betting on sports, or playing black jack at the Casino, particularly since one's "bets" in these markets affect the real price of the property being speculated upon. If one's bets were to affect the outcome of black jack, or sports events, then we'd we quick to recognize these enterprises as inherently corrupt.

This is inherently a corruption of free market, and not a byproduct thereof, with "computer based" being irrelevant.

Government should not be allowed to place a limit on how much a person can earn. Without captains of industry like Sam Walton, Bill Gates, Edison, and without large, stable companies like GE and Wal-Mart, we wouldn't have the lifestyle we have today. But government SHOULD be able to protect society by creating laws that restrict the ability of the individual to destabilize the economy for personal gain. The rights of the individual end at the ability to cause harm to the rest of society.

Ive previously addressed the corruptions of GE, and its CEO Immelt, by collusion with the government, and persons like Edison have been notorious for patent theft from Tesla, who died penniless. In fact the system of electricity distribution involving overhead wires, and the energy loss by the impedance of those wires, is totally designed to facilitate an obligation to energy companies, whereas the energy loss by that method is astronomical, when Tesla himself discovered a far more efficient and reliable wireless distribution method.

And while we surely appreciate the Wal-Marts of the world providing us inexpensive consumer items, the fact of the matter is that Wal-Mart only exists by providing cheap foreign goods, because of the obstacles to industry created by government's excessive taxation and regulation. Each and every purchase we make from Wal-Mart involves the undermining of our own lifestyle, and the transfer of wealth, and economic well-being to other countries. Wal-Mart's very existence is owed to the corruption of the Free Market by government.

Each and every one of these heralded "captains of industry", involve conspicuous corruptions of the Free Market, disregard for our individual liberties, subversion of our lifestyles, and promotion of government intrusion into our lives, with each doing so by the direct and indirect collusion with government to prohibit a free and open market, inclusive of Bill Gates. Furthermore, each of these "Captains" are consistent in their support of hurdles limiting entry of new competition into their own niche markets.

The free market is the gateway to the pursuit of happiness for society. It should be the goal of government to make barriers to entry into the marketplace as low as practical. Huge regulatory structures that can only be borne by large companies is not only unnecessary in a free market where informed consumer choice is protected and enforced, but they also prevent individuals from introducing new business models. "Social mobility" is something of a loaded term in our partisan landscape, because it's used as a weapon to try to impose equal outcome over equal opportunity. But it is important that the economy be as open as we can make it, so that we can maximize the individual's ability to participate in it, and succeed or fail on their own merits. Protecting the free market is truly protecting the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of society.

While you once again reach the correct conclusion regarding the Free Market, and the corruption of that market by government, it is curious how your redefinition of of "Freedom", as well as whitewashing of "Social Engineering" being dictated by some heretofore undisclosed authority, might somehow play into this conclusion.

There is a conspicuous incongruity between your seeming necessity to redefine these terms, with the end conclusion, as they are incompatible with Free Market Capitalism, and this country's founding principles.

 

[Master PO]

Re: Role of government (continuation from "right to secede" thread)

The government can exercise rights and powers over property if the people make that part of the government's mandate.

disagree and heres why.....we dont have a democratic republic where the people as a majority can come together to make laws which trample on an individual rights of property, Madison states you right to property is equal to your right to free speech.

the u.s. is a republican form, and rights are not a vote-able issue for government or the people, this is why rights are unalienable.

The amendment process isn't meant to keep the government from solving problems for people. It's meant to force the nation to collectively have a rational, cool-headed discussion on the issue and come to a broad consensus before acting.

the Constitution is a negative force ......not a positive force.....the founders did create positive law on the people.

government is not here to feed, house and put clothes on your back.

charity is no duty of government-- James Madison

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.-- james madison

becuase if government does for one person, they have to take from another, because government gets it money from the people.

The Constitution that limits ourselves is split between every level of local, state and federal laws we implement for ourselves, and the ultimate responsibility for restraint lies within the individual. The only reason we need laws at all is to step in when conflicts arise between sovereign individuals.

when you preform an illegal action against another citizen or entity, you rights can be affected, however government has no authority to restrict your rights, just becuase they dont like how you exercise them....meaning morally.

on the federal level....government is supposed the be the arbitrator between the people and a state of another state, or between 2 states .

the federal government has no authority under the Constitution outside of any federal domain, that the state has no agreed to...article 1 section 8

 

[SocialEngineer]

Re: Role of government (continuation from "right to secede" thread)

There is no "balance of power" involved in freedom, any more so than the range of one's rights involves the exercise of any sort of power.

How do you define individual sovereignty? Without context, a term can be defined and redefined to suit the intent its user at any time.

As previously demonstrated, these ideas you promote are all Marxist ideologies, and incompatible with this country's principles.

I'm not a Marxist.

What you're "going to" do, is apply further Orwellian distortion, this time to the understanding of "social engineering", in an attempt to white wash it, so as to cleanse Marxist ideology and allow government dictate of the terms of freedom, and the playing field itself.

Engineering and Social Engineering have nothing in common. Engineering is dictated by the laws of physical science involving real cause and effect. Social engineering is dictated by whims of a ruling class in order to fabricate a Utopian society having no basis in reality, with disregard to real outcome.

Engineering in any form is using knowledge of a system to affect the behavior of that system. Engineering can be used to create a weapon of oppression, or a useful tool that increases the productivity or quality of life of the user. The value of social engineering is defined by what it is used to accomplish.

There are many people who have called themselves social engineers in the past, who have used social engineering principles of psychology, sociology and economics, to create systems that oppress and manipulate the society the are applied to. There are also social engineers who have used those same principles to create equitable and stable societies that reflected the values and principles of the people of those societies. Anyone that creates a government is a social engineer.

History has proven that the best means of preserving a stable free market, is prohibiting the overarching authority of a federal government from dictating what that market is, and dictating what values should be by positive influence, and negative prohbition on the otherwise free citizens operating each for their optimal choices.

I beg to differ. What you are describing is laissez faire capitalism, and it has been thoroughly discredited in its application. There are no recognized economists that believe that a completely unregulated economy will produce a stable result.

In fact, there is not a single currency in the history of the world that has never become unstable and collapsed, including the U.S. dollar. So to assert that any method is "proven" to produce a stable outcome, is wrong.

Yes, the above is all true, but it is not the effect of your distortion of the word "freedom" nor your corruption of "social engineering" to be nothing but the same as rational "engineering", which are both falsehoods and antithetical to this nation's founding principles.

Your indication of a valid conclusion congruent with this country's principles, above, and pretending such is derived from false presumptions <ie "freedom" and "social engineering">, is only an attempt to validate what later rationale you will most certainly provide, for government dictate of the environment., and eventually picking "winners and losers" by dictation of what the game is. This is nothing more than a roundabout means of validating the corruption we have now.



The phrases "adding value to the economy" and "contribution to the economic system", above, both involve introduction of further subjective evaluations, which will quite likely be resolved by you to resolve ton the government making these decisions itself, when under a Capitalist free Market system that accumulation of wealth would be the result of the cumulative "votes" of every individual in the society to sustain that wealth.

The validity, or lack thereof, of commodity or stock trading, does not hinge on them being "computer based", but rather the fact that this speculation has been tied to the real price of the properties, influencing the real cost paid by consumers, for no real reason. This is no more valid that making one's income by betting on sports, or playing black jack at the Casino, except that here one's the markets one's "bets' affect the real price of the property being speculated upon.

This is inherently a corruption of free market, and not a byproduct thereof.



Ive previously addressed the corruptions of GE, and its CEO Immelt, by collusion with the government, and persons like Edison have been notorious for patent theft from Tesla, who died penniless. In fact the system of electricity distribution involving overhead wires, and the energy loss by the impedance of those wires, is totally designed to facilitate an obligation to energy companies, whereas the energy loss by that method is astronomical, when Tesla himself discovered a far more efficient and reliable wireless distribution method.

And while we surely appreciate the Wal-Marts of the world providing us inexpensive consumer items, the fact of the matter is that Wal-Mart only exists by providing cheap foreign goods, because of the obstacles to industry created by government's excessive taxation and regulation. Each and every purchase we make from Wal-Mart involves the undermining of our own lifestyle, and the transfer of wealth, and economic well-being to other countries. Wal-Mart's very existence is owed to the corruption of the Free Market by government.

Each and every one of these heralded "captains of industry", involve conspicuous corruptions of the Free Market, disregard for our individual liberties, subversion of our lifestyles, and promotion of government intrusion into our lives, with each doing so by the direct and indirect collusion with government to prohibit a free and open market, inclusive of Bill Gates. Furthermore, each of these "Captains" are consistent in their support of hurdles limiting entry of new competition into their own niche markets.






While you once again reach the correct conclusion regarding the Free Market, and the corruption of that market by government, it is curious how your redefinition of of "Freedom", as well as whitewashing of "Social Engineering" being dictated by some heretofore undisclosed authority, might somehow play into this conclusion.

There is a conspicuous incongruity between your seeming necessity to redefine these terms, with the end conclusion, as they are incompatible with Free Market Capitalism, and this country's founding principles.

The rest of your argument is a subjective evaluation based on principles that I can neither agree with nor disagree with, because you are not defining them clearly enough for rational debate to be had. You rail against my ideas, calling them Marxist any time I assert the right of a society to make rules that conform to their values and principles. I have already explained the difference between popular sovereignty and Marxist populism, and I have explained how my beliefs do not conform to Marxism.

 

[SocialEngineer]

Re: Role of government (continuation from "right to secede" thread)

disagree and heres why.....we dont have a democratic republic where the people as a majority can come together to make laws which trample on an individual rights of property, Madison states you right to property is equal to your right to free speech.

the u.s. is a republican form, and rights are not a vote-able issue for government or the people, this is why rights are unalienable.

We have a founding document that allows for modification. The Constitution does not restrict what can be added or taken away from the Constitution, only the manner by which those changes must be made. If a Constitutional amendment were passed that repealed the entire bill of rights, and authorized the government complete control over the movements and actions of every citizen, it would be Constitutional at that point for the government to do so.

The reason that doesn't happen is because the requirements associated with ratifying an amendment preclude that outcome in every practical way. The requirements for amending the Constitution are one of the best negative feedback mechanism that are built into the system. Those requirements are a true feat of social engineering, in that regard.

the Constitution is a negative force ......not a positive force.....the founders did create positive law on the people.

government is not here to feed, house and put clothes on your back.

charity is no duty of government-- James Madison

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.-- james madison

becuase if government does for one person, they have to take from another, because government gets it money from the people.

I agree completely, and I would never advocate for anything else.

when you preform an illegal action against another citizen or entity, you rights can be affected, however government has no authority to restrict your rights, just becuase they dont like how you exercise them....meaning morally.

This argument contradicts its self. Why are any particular actions ever deemed illegal in the first place? The only reason to make something illegal is if that action threatens the principles that government is designed to protect, being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If society makes a law saying you can't do something because it negatively affects the life, liberty or pursuit of happiness of others, then it doesn't really matter how happy it makes you to pursue it, or how much it limits your liberty to be restricted from doing it. Your liberty and pursuit of happiness should not be allowed to reduce the liberty, or the ability to pursue happiness, of your fellow citizens. That is what laws are designed to do.

on the federal level....government is supposed the be the arbitrator between the people and a state of another state, or between 2 states .

Or among individuals living in different states.

the federal government has no authority under the Constitution outside of any federal domain, that the state has no agreed to...article 1 section 8

Absolutely, and the federal government is also authorized to pass laws to accomplish its mandate, using our legislative process.

 

[SocialEngineer]

Re: Role of government (continuation from "right to secede" thread)

disagree and heres why.....we dont have a democratic republic where the people as a majority can come together to make laws which trample on an individual rights of property, Madison states you right to property is equal to your right to free speech.

the u.s. is a republican form, and rights are not a vote-able issue for government or the people, this is why rights are unalienable.

I don't disagree with that. However, you don't have to disagree what I said to assert that what you said is true. It is factually correct that there is no inherent restriction placed on what can be added to or taken away from The Constitution by amendment. If you can get the amendment ratified, you could make the Constitution a recipe for pot roast. The only feedback against that is that two thirds of the states would need to ratify an amendment making a recipe for pot roast our government's founding document.

I agree that The Constitution is, and should be, a document of negative rights. It should by its nature place the ultimate power in the hands of the individual. The day that it is changed to stop reflecting those principles is the day that I will join a secessionist movement to create a new government that restores those principles. That does not mean that the Constitution can not be changed, and it does not mean that additional changes to form a more perfect union and protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, should never be made.

 

[Trip]

Re: Role of government (continuation from "right to secede" thread)

That does not mean that the government does not exist to restrict our freedoms. Government must restrict our freedoms because that is all government CAN do. We are born as sovereign individuals with the freedom to do whatever the **** we want. Government doesn't establish those freedoms. The fact that we exist establishes those freedoms. Government exists SOLELY to restrict our freedoms, in the interest of establishing and enforcing the balance of power between sovereign individuals, so that we have a system in place that allows us to coexist and resolve conflicts of interests between ourselves in an organized and consistent way.

]

AHHHH FINALLY A BIT OF TRUTH, and you finally show your true colors, and reason to validate your corrupt whitewashing of "Social Engineering"!

Then by your statement above, removing your use of obfuscatory double-negatives, what you're indicating is "this does mean that government exists to restrict our freedoms", with this being confirmed by your very next sentence, "Government must restrict our freedoms because that is all the government CAN do".

Sorry, but no, government's business is NOT to restrict our freedoms, but rather to protect our individual rights and liberties. What government can legitimately restrict, are not "freedoms" at all, which addresses my previous reference to your need to corrupt the term "freedoms".

No, we are not born with freedoms to do whatever the **** we want. That is not a founding principle of this country, but is the perspective adopted by many short-sighted Libertarians.

There is no sort of "balance of power", much less the consideration of "power" at all, in consideration of these freedoms, which negates your conclusion that government exists to "solely to restrict our freedoms". Freedoms end when they adversely affect others, and undermine society. This necessitates a consideration of OUTCOME, which is a factor notoriously ignored by both Libertarians and Progressives alike.

Your representation that government exists "SOLELY to restrict our freedoms" is a concept entirely ANTITHETICAL to our founding philosophy, incompatible with individual liberty, AND YET CURIOUSLY CONGRUENT MARXISM and totalitarian government dictate!

The Declaration of Independence, still recognized by statute as the organic founding principle of this country, indicates the SOLE and singular purpose of government quite differently:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
​

Government's singular purpose being to "secure individual rights" is quite a lot different from your corruption of government's purpose being, "SOLELY to restrict our freedoms".

 

[Master PO]

Re: Role of government (continuation from "right to secede" thread)

We have a founding document that allows for modification. The Constitution does not restrict what can be added or taken away from the Constitution, only the manner by which those changes must be made. If a Constitutional amendment were passed that repealed the entire bill of rights, and authorized the government complete control over the movements and actions of every citizen, it would be Constitutional at that point for the government to do so.

BOR cannot be repealed say ----->the founders.

read the preamble of the bill of rights, it restricts government from tampering with them.

This argument contradicts its self. Why are any particular actions ever deemed illegal in the first place? The only reason to make something illegal is if that action threatens the principles that government is designed to protect, being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
If society makes a law saying you can't do something because it negatively affects the life, liberty or pursuit of happiness of others, then it doesn't really matter how happy it makes you to pursue it, or how much it limits your liberty to be restricted from doing it. Your liberty and pursuit of happiness should not be allowed to reduce the liberty, or the ability to pursue happiness, of your fellow citizens. That is what laws are designed to do.

that's correct i agree...but government cannot make laws to restrict your rights, becuase they dont just like your morals, when you trample on other life, liberty and property, ...which is what pursuit translates into....then you have a problem.

Or among individuals living in different states.

not between people, becuase people cannot violate the constitution, ...you must mean when a person and another state than his own, comes into conflict...IE.....Texas citizens rights or privileges violated by say ...California.

Absolutely, and the federal government is also authorized to pass laws to accomplish its mandate, using our legislative process.

the federal government has no authority on state property or private property, unless they can show a violation....they cannot go onto others property...the constitution bars them from such action.

 

[SocialEngineer]

Re: Role of government (continuation from "right to secede" thread)

]

AHHHH FINALLY A BIT OF TRUTH, and you finally show your true colors, and reason to validate your corrupt whitewashing of "Social Engineering"!

Then by your statement above, removing your use of obfuscatory double-negatives, what you're indicating is "this does mean that government exists to restrict our freedoms", with this being confirmed by your very next sentence, "Government must restrict our freedoms because that is all the government CAN do".

Sorry, but no, government's business is NOT to restrict our freedoms, but rather to protect our individual rights and liberties. What government can legitimately restrict, are not "freedoms" at all, which addresses my previous reference to your need to corrupt the term "freedoms".

No, we are not born with freedoms to do whatever the **** we want. That is not a founding principle of this country, but is the perspective adopted by many short-sighted Libertarians.

There is no sort of "balance of power", much less the consideration of "power" at all, in consideration of these freedoms, which negates your conclusion that government exists to "solely to restrict our freedoms". Freedoms end when they adversely affect others, and undermine society. This necessitates a consideration of OUTCOME, which is a factor notoriously ignored by both Libertarians and Progressives alike.

Your representation that government exists "SOLELY to restrict our freedoms" is a concept entirely ANTITHETICAL to our founding philosophy, incompatible with individual liberty, AND YET CURIOUSLY CONGRUENT MARXISM and totalitarian government dictate!

The Declaration of Independence, still recognized by statute as the organic founding principle of this country, indicates the SOLE and singular purpose of government quite differently:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
​

Government's singular purpose being to "secure individual rights" is quite a lot different from your corruption of government's purpose being, "SOLELY to restrict our freedoms".

Except that government can not secure freedoms, or do anything else, without the use of force. Government does not make men free.

If all government can do is protect freedom, then it must protect my freedom to kill you if I don't like what you are saying. Otherwise, by restricting my right to kill you, or your right to kill me, government is oppressing us both.

 

[SocialEngineer]

Re: Role of government (continuation from "right to secede" thread)

BOR cannot be repealed say ----->the founders.

read the preamble of the bill of rights, it restricts government from tampering with them.

The Constitution is amendable. It could be amended to remove the preamble, for example, or invalidate the bill of rights. That's not to say that it is likely to happen, and it certainly isn't to say that I would approve of such an amendment. But to say that something can't ever be legal because the Constitution makes it so assumes that the Constitution can not be modified. It's just factually incorrect.

It's really a stupid thing to be arguing about, because you're correct in principle, and I'm correct on the facts. I don't think we disagree at all on the merits of limited government.

that's correct i agree...but government cannot make laws to restrict your rights, becuase they dont just like your morals, when you trample on other life, liberty and property, ...which is what pursuit translates into....then you have a problem.

My point is that the natural boundaries for our inherent rights are defined by the affects of our actions on one another. My right to life, liberty and/or the pursuit of happiness ends at the point at which my actions negatively affect your life, liberty and/or pursuit of happiness.

Here's a question for you to illustrate my point: Let's say that we all have the unlimited right to pursue happiness, and government has no business placing any limits whatsoever on, let's say, the private ownership of property. Let's say that I become so successful in business, that I literally take over the entire economy. I used tactics to run my competition out of business, and I bankrupted every other citizen in the country. I bought up every piece of land, including yours, and I now own literally everything, including the clothes on your back, because you bought them from me on credit (because I'm the only supplier).

In this case, you still have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as much as I have it. And yet, you are pretty much my slave, because you have no ability to use the resources of society other than the ability I grant you (because I own it all). If I didn't grant you the privilege of living on my land, I could literally kick you out of this free country, or kill you for trespassing. I can tell you where to live. I can tell you what to do and what not to do on MY LAND, because my right to determine what happens on MY land is absolute, just like yours is.

Do you have the right to life if I have the right to kill you for trespassing on my land? Do you have the right to liberty if I'm the one who dictates your movements on MY land? Do you have the right to pursue happiness if you have no ability to increase your standing in society or control resources other than what I give you? Have I violated your rights at all here, except in response to you violating my rights?

 

[SocialEngineer]

Re: Role of government (continuation from "right to secede" thread)

Just for Trip, I will explain why I am not a Marxist.

From Wikipedia:

"According to Marxist analysis, class conflict within capitalism arises due to intensifying contradictions between highly-productive mechanized and socialized production performed by the proletariat, and private ownership and private appropriation of the surplus product in the form of surplus value (profit) by a small minority of private owners called the bourgeoisie. As the contradiction becomes apparent to the proletariat, social unrest between the two antagonistic classes intensifies, culminating in a social revolution. The eventual long-term outcome of this revolution would be the establishment of socialism - a socioeconomic system based on cooperative ownership of the means of production, distribution based on one's contribution, and production organized directly for use. Karl Marx hypothesized that, as the productive forces and technology continued to advance, socialism would eventually give way to a communist stage of social development. Communism would be a classless, stateless, moneyless society based on common ownership and the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"."

I will go point by point, and explain my own ideology so that you can see the clear differences.

Marxism: class conflict within capitalism arises due to intensifying contradictions between highly-productive mechanized and socialized production performed by the proletariat, and private ownership and private appropriation of the surplus product in the form of surplus value (profit) by a small minority of private owners called the bourgeoisie.

Me: There is no such thing as class conflict, because our society does not limit people based on class. People are able to move both from the upper class to the lower class, and from the lower class to the upper class, on the merits of their participation. The system is not perfect, and improvements can, and should be made to maximize merit-based social mobility, but it is not inherently a system in which class conflict will inevitably arise.

Marxism: As the contradiction becomes apparent to the proletariat, social unrest between the two antagonistic classes intensifies, culminating in a social revolution.

Me: Money is a medium of exchange, and wealth is ideally a representation of positive contribution in society. On the other hand, if a participant is able to create wealth without creating corresponding value in the economy, then it defeats the whole purpose of using currency. Social unrest occurs when those problems with the economic system go unaddressed, and the economy becomes unstable as the result of manipulation of the currency for personal gain on the part of people who are not acting in good faith with the fundamentals of market economies.

Marxism: The eventual long-term outcome of this revolution would be the establishment of socialism - a socioeconomic system based on cooperative ownership of the means of production, distribution based on one's contribution, and production organized directly for use.

Me: The way to avoid these instabilities is to create and enforce rules that provide negative feedback against the actions that cause the system to become unstable. Placing limitations on computer trading to bar trading of a stock from two minutes before the company's scheduled press conference, until two minutes after, for example, would eliminate the ability of traders to manipulate split second differences in internet latency to make stock trades before the information propagates completely through the system. An additional restriction requiring the buyer of a stock to wait for a month before selling that stock, would stabilize the stock market by preventing individuals from profiting from transient price fluctuations. There is no reason to abandon Capitalism so long as common sense restrictions to address potential pitfalls are enforced.

Marxism: Karl Marx hypothesized that, as the productive forces and technology continued to advance, socialism would eventually give way to a communist stage of social development. Communism would be a classless, stateless, moneyless society based on common ownership and the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

Me: Free market economies are the most efficient means of allocating scarce resources. The government's role is not to dictate production methods, product quality, or what should be produced, bought or sold. The role of government is to protect the market fundamentals of choice and competition, so that the market remains stable. Any government subsidies or redistribution of wealth should be directed solely towards investing in the future prosperity of those that can not invest in themselves, and all forms of redistribution should be implemented at as low of a level of government as practical to ensure that the people paying for those social safety nets are the ones with the ultimate control over how they are applied.