Why don't Americans understand freedom?

Master of Logic Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 9384

Rule by force in a dictatorship, and IRAN is rule by force by democracy. They vote, but it is mob rule by vote.

HOWEVER, in America's government it is not that way. The Constitution allows for dissent and does not garuntee that the voters "absolutely rule" anymore than any one branch of the goverment can "absolutely rule". Our system is one of advise and consent. No one branch has absolute control over the other.

Not even the voters can absolutly rule. The last segment of the First Amendment is hardly if ever mentioned, "to petition the government for a redress of grievance".

That means EVEN THE SMALL GUY, can bring a case to a local court all the way up to the Supreme Court and attempt to pursuade them, and the Supreme Court, in our history HAS NOT ALWAYS SIDED WITH THE MAJORITY POPULATION.

It is why women have the right to vote today and why O'Hair was able to get government lead prayer out of school. And why Jahovia's Witnesses convinced that same court that the Pledge should not be manditory.

The kingships of the dark ages to the theocracy of Iran to the dictatorship of Kim Jong Ill, you cannot tell me, as imperfect as America's government is, that you'd rather live under the others.

There is no way to avoid government, it is inevitable in large population. So you are left with dictatorships, or you have a system that protects political competition and free speech. So far, The US Constitution is the best attempt at that.

If you think you can do better, give it a shot.

Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 9:27 am

I guess we also have to consider all the fear mongering that's in vogue with politics and 'journalism' right now. What better way to get the hoi polloi to look down on freedom than to scare the shit out of them with the prospect of risk and personal responsibility?

Newbie Joined: Feb 04, 2008 Posts: 23

Brian37 wrote:

The kingships of the dark ages to the theocracy of Iran to the dictatorship of Kim Jong Ill, you cannot tell me, as imperfect as America's government is, that you'd rather live under the others.

Huh? What the Hell are you talking about?

See, this is why I am glad to be homeschooling my daughter. She is 12 and she understands that the founders of this country -- you know, the guys who wrote the Constitution -- warned of the tyranny of the majority (they called it the 'violence of the majority" if I remember correctly, and thus set up a Republican form of government that (they thought) would shield Americans from the whims of the majority.

My daughter, at age 12, is currently doing a study of the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers. I recommend you read them too. You are harboring strong opinions on matters you clearly don't understand.

Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 9:26 am

Where I grew up they never had any of those sunday rules. To me they are just laughable. Laughing

Many moons ago, for a year I was a mail carrier in a town next to where I grew up where everything shuts down on Saturday because it was a town founded by 7th day adventists. They even got their mail on Sunday instead of Saturday. Even on my way home on Friday evening (the stricter ones believe the sabbath starts when the sun goes down on Friday night) the place was nearly empty. A couple of the adventist mail carriers got to go home early, before dark, even if they weren't completely finished. (Was always my job to finish their leftovers). Most food stores and restaurants had tons of vegetarian stuff because a lot of them are veggies. And of course, a lot of stores didn't carry alcohol.

Aside from the mail being delivered on a different day, they don't have any laws, rules or regulations that you can't be open on saturday/friday night or you can't sell alcohol. It just happened to be that more than half the town's population is currently adventist and years ago it was almost completely adventist.

Master of Logic Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 9384

McDuffie_for_Congress wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

The kingships of the dark ages to the theocracy of Iran to the dictatorship of Kim Jong Ill, you cannot tell me, as imperfect as America's government is, that you'd rather live under the others.

Huh? What the Hell are you talking about?

See, this is why I am glad to be homeschooling my daughter. She is 12 and she understands that the founders of this country -- you know, the guys who wrote the Constitution -- warned of the tyranny of the majority (they called it the 'violence of the majority" if I remember correctly, and thus set up a Republican form of government that (they thought) would shield Americans from the whims of the majority.

My daughter, at age 12, is currently doing a study of the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers. I recommend you read them too. You are harboring strong opinions on matters you clearly don't understand.

WTF are you talking about?

Of course the founders warned of the tyrany of the majority. That is why you have freedom of speech and a free press so you can bitch about the majority and compete against the majority politically and even WIN against the majority |(SUPREME COURT) does not always side with the majority

"to petition the government for a redress of greviance" FIRST AMENDMENT.

The reason that these things were put in there was because they knew that humans, not gods, would be interpreting the Consitution, so they wrote it the best they could to insure that there was a check and balance on power .
Once again, if you think you can write a better Constitution, give it a shot. I dont think the lawmakers and judges throughout our history have always interpreted the Constitution objectively, but that makes the human flawed, not the Consitution itself. The Consitution is the best law to date that is best suited to prevent tyrany, so I have no clue where your quote above came from.

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 1:34 am

Brian37 wrote:

I dont think the lawmakers and judges throughout our history have always interpreted the Constitution objectively, but that makes the human flawed, not the Consitution itself. The Consitution is the best law to date that is best suited to prevent tyrany, so I have no clue where your quote above came from.

Good observation! I do think that the founders knew that fallible humans sould be interpreting the Constitution.

Of course, the constitution is somewhat necessarily flawed. Why? Because the founders also knew tha tthey had to include some way for the Cosntitution to be flexible enough to allow for future circumstances but not so flexible that the Constitution would be null.

But how to do that without allowing judges some discretion?

Hence, the 'necessary and proper' clause, which basically says that there are certain things that will not be foreseen by the constituion, and in thosei nstances, the legislature will have the authority to do anything "ncessary and proper" to the enforcement of the "foregoing powers."

Unfortunately, their fears about this clause - it was hotly debated during the convention - were justified. Starting with Hamilton's interpretation that a national bank was 'necessary and proper,' the congress and executive branch have used this clause to do almost anything and everything under the guise of being necessary and proper.

Tehy could have figured out a better way to write this clause, but I don't think they could have elimintated it all together.

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 2:24 am

Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:

Tehy could have figured out a better way to write this clause, but I don't think they could have elimintated it all together.

Why not?
Was there any instance where this clause saved the day?
That is, something bad was about to happen, and the US government would not be able to do anything about it, was it not for the "necessary and proper" clause, but thanks to it appropriate actions were taken allowing disaster to be evaded?

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:46 am

Quote:

Was there any instance where this clause saved the day?

Even as a staunch libertarian, I ido think that were Hamilton not allowed to consolidate the US's debt by instituting a national bank, the United States would have been well bankrupt in short order. (And I think the majority of historians of this period agree with that.)

Many also argue that had Lincoln not been allowed the police powers he argued for under the NP clause, the union would have been fractured and left it vulnerable.

Of course, there have been many instances where the 'necessary and proper' clause has proved disasterous (I think these outweigh the positives).

But I really do think that the founders would have been foolish to create a document that literally does not allow for any exigencies. (And that is a paradox of constitutionalism that I am not sure can ever be resolved.)

Master of Logic Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 9384

There is a huge differance between when I say, "Go live in Iran" if you dont like free speech. And when a fundy Christian says, "Go live in Iran" if you dont like free speech.

When I say it, it is NOT the "My way or the highway, love it or leave it" approach of the fundies wich is code for, TAKE YOUR SEAT AT THE BACK OF THE BUS AND DONT COMPETE.

When I say, "Go live in Iran" if you want to know what opression is about, I AM INCLUDING MYSELF. Christians are NUTS if they think what I am typing here would fly in Iran and I would be subject to the same back of the bus attitude they have for non-muslims, IF NOT WORSE. Even Sunnis in Iran have it as bad as Christians and atheists. At best, they keep their mouth shut and hold their words to survive.

"Freedom of speech" does not mean to the secularist(who can be a Christian too) the same thing it means to a theocratic fundy Christian.

To the secularist it means what the constitution intended, "We wont come after you for your dissent, but we wont aid you either. We will remain neutral".

To the fundy it means, "Not only do we get our phone book adds...Not only do we get our private billboards and 360,000 houses of worship....not only do we get our websites and radio and tv shows, WE WANT TO GANG TAG GOVERNMENT AS SOLELY OURS, (With guests welcome as long as they know their place is in the guest house, even if they are citizens born in this country)

Theocracies are run on religion, America's Constitution is run by protecting the individual, even those we dissagree with.

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 1:45 pm

Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:

Even as a staunch libertarian, I ido think that were Hamilton not allowed to consolidate the US's debt by instituting a national bank, the United States would have been well bankrupt in short order. (And I think the majority of historians of this period agree with that.)

It was bankrupt...because of the "central bank" which printed the greenbacks.

Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:

Many also argue that had Lincoln not been allowed the police powers he argued for under the NP clause, the union would have been fractured and left it vulnerable.

One wonders if they noticed the fracturing via the secession.

Newbie Joined: Feb 04, 2008 Posts: 23

Brian37 wrote:

WTF are you talking about?

It's possible that I read your post too quickly, skimmed over it, Allow me to reread everything you posted and respond appropriately.

And actually, I do think that I could write a better Constitution/Bill of Rights. I would remove the ambiguity so that no one could claim a different interpretation.

Indeed, the Constitution of the CSA was an improved version of the US Constitution, adding line item veto, and removing the General Welfare clause.

But, I promise I will reread what you wrote and respond later.

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:09 am

McDuffie_for_Congress wrote:

And actually, I do think that I could write a better Constitution/Bill of Rights. I would remove the ambiguity so that no one could claim a different interpretation.

It was probably a lot less ambiguous for the time in which it was written. Your new improved version would probably gain the same sense of ambiguity in a similar time frame.

Master of Logic Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 9384

McDuffie_for_Congress wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

WTF are you talking about?

It's possible that I read your post too quickly, skimmed over it, Allow me to reread everything you posted and respond appropriately.

And actually, I do think that I could write a better Constitution/Bill of Rights. I would remove the ambiguity so that no one could claim a different interpretation.

Indeed, the Constitution of the CSA was an improved version of the US Constitution, adding line item veto, and removing the General Welfare clause.

But, I promise I will reread what you wrote and respond later.

The problem with elliminating "amiguity" is that you are still dealing with humans with bias. Ever look at a cell phone contract or long term morgage contract. They are written to "cover" every contingancy and are supposedly "clear". Yea, they are clear, to scam artists and lawyers, but not to laymen.

It is not so simple.

"Free speech" is garunteed as it should be. BUT, it is also regulated. The constitution only garuntees that speech wont be banned, it does not say that it shouldnt be regulated.

That is why although fundies would like to outlaw x rated movies, they cant. But certainly common law would say that 5 year old kids should not be viewing them.

"Freedom of religion" is garunteed, as it should be. But it too, can be regulated. And out of all the speech, it is the least regulated. The founders only "regulation" on religion was that they would not come after, nor aid religion. The only regulation on religion was, "On your own time with your own resources".

I think once you get too wordy with something it allows the powers to be, not just government, to play a shell game on those less powerfull.

Language, although not perfect, and constantly changing, is the only thing humans have. So while you dont want ambiguity, you also dont want to over complicate it.

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:01 am

McDuffie and Brian,

I think both of you have legitmate points here.

McDuffie says that he could write a better constitution.

I believe that we could possibly write a better constitution today than the founders could have, mostly because we have evidenced of hindsight. We know (we all have opinions on) certian things that went wrong with the constitution we have now, and what we could do differently to speak to those problems.

Brian brings up the point that no matter what we do, the constitution is ultimately written and interpreted by humans.

I agree also with this. There is no one method - and certainly no objectively right method - for interpreting the constituiton. Some say 'broad principles' (arguing that the spirit of the law is what counts), other say 'original intent' (arguing that what was meant is what goes), and others say 'textualism/literalism" (only the word is what counts).

All have pros and cons, but the bottom line is that while we might all have our preferred interpretation, there is no objectively correct way to interpret, and we will all disagree with some judges interpretation.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Oct 24, 2005 Posts: 666

Actually, as an experiment, I did write a much more explicit constitution. It's not as hard as one might think.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore