Why don't Americans understand freedom?

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

Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:

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

I am quite sure that the people who wrote it, GOT IT, but even with your so called attempt to improve it, still doesnt take into account that society changes and so does language. So even without looking at your newer version, it still would not garuntee, even if I agreed with it, that some future generation would find a way to missinterpret it.

Of course "Stop" means "Stop" and "Go means Go". But the zietguist back then is not what it is today and we are not talking about one word definitions.

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 8:44 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.)

Serves me right for not knowing history, there's not much I can argue here, but let's just say I've heard enough economic nonsense from historians to remain skeptical.

Quote:

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.

I'm not quite sure it would be necessary if he followed the constitution to begin with.

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:59 pm

Ivan wrote:

I'm not quite sure it would be necessary if he followed the constitution to begin with.

How do you mean? I have heard an argument (made by anarchist Lysander Spooner) that constitutionally, Lincoln was obligated to let the South secede. (Because they rejected the constract whicih made it invalid for them, as no one was asked to sign the constitutional contract to begin with).

for the record, I am not quite sure I buy the 'implied powers' argument that the president, during war time, has powers that consist of making up the rules as he/she goes along.

But I don't think the US would have faired well - I think it may have collapsed - if Lincoln did not do some of what he did (freeing the southern slaves, for instance, which is not constituitonally sanctioned.)

Graduate Thinker Joined: Oct 24, 2005 Posts: 666

Brian37 wrote:

Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:

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

I am quite sure that the people who wrote it, GOT IT, but even with your so called attempt to improve it, still doesnt take into account that society changes and so does language. So even without looking at your newer version, it still would not garuntee, even if I agreed with it, that some future generation would find a way to missinterpret it.

Of course "Stop" means "Stop" and "Go means Go". But the zietguist back then is not what it is today and we are not talking about one word definitions.

The problem with the people who wrote the constitution is that they expected the reader to be reasonably intelligent.

In my version, I was very explicit because I expect my reader to be a moron.

It would still be possible to misinterpret, but it would take a lot more work.

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

I wrote a version too.

Yep, it's true.

My first Amendment is as follows.

1. You have the right to date any super model of your choosing.

My second Amendment is as follows.

2. You have the right to bare arms, and legs and whatever.

Newbie Joined: Jun 16, 2008 Posts: 13

Obviously the no alcohol sales on Sunday thing is absurd.

A bit off topic: Is there any real evidence that libertarianism would work better than anything else? It seems to me that the idea of semi-anarcho-capitalism arose out of a misguided attempt to assign the precision of the natural sciences to economics. Compare, for example, the efficacy of Keynesianism to the supply side policies we've had since Reagan. If the free market is so efficient for non-consumer goods, then why does it abjectly fail so often? Is there any evidence that general welfare, unemployment benefits, and the like, are inferior to their alternatives?

Once again, it seems to me that anarcho-capitalism or Randian "Objectivism" can not and will not work because imperfect dissemination of information, economic lag times, boom-and-bust herd mentalities, and that without government intervention, a monetary transaction for a good or service will not include the external prices of that good. We've also seen that free markets fail in dealing with public goods, which often have the best bang-for-the-buck and positive effects on society. So honestly, what gives?

I'm an ex-Libertarian, and I feel like Christopher Hitchens does about his Trotskyism when he looks back on the old days. A younger, dumber me misled by idealist rhetoric before the imperfections of the real world impressed themselves upon me.

Just Arrived Joined: Jun 30, 2008 Posts: 7

McDuffie_for_Congress wrote:

And actually, I do think that I could write a better Constitution/Bill of Rights.

You're joking, right? ... Right? Shocked

Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:36 am

gnosis wrote:

McDuffie_for_Congress wrote:

And actually, I do think that I could write a better Constitution/Bill of Rights.

You're joking, right? ... Right? Shocked

You don't just have to write one... you have to write one that others with many different interests, goals, and priorities will ratify. Getting all those states to come on board required a lot of compromise.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 550

Saitou wrote:

gnosis wrote:

McDuffie_for_Congress wrote:

And actually, I do think that I could write a better Constitution/Bill of Rights.

You're joking, right? ... Right? Shocked

You don't just have to write one... you have to write one that others with many different interests, goals, and priorities will ratify. Getting all those states to come on board required a lot of compromise.

Nobody alone could write a 'better' Constitution/Bill of Rights. It would take many different people to decide how the constitution should protect everyone's interests while putting the interests of the country first. Come to think of it, it would be kind of hard to write a new constitution at all today, what with everybody bickering about every damn thing. We would do better to stick with the one we've got.

Just Arrived Joined: Jun 30, 2008 Posts: 7

Cygnus wrote:

Nobody alone could write a 'better' Constitution/Bill of Rights. It would take many different people to decide how the constitution should protect everyone's interests while putting the interests of the country first. Come to think of it, it would be kind of hard to write a new constitution at all today, what with everybody bickering about every damn thing. We would do better to stick with the one we've got.

Yep. We could actually try to follow the one we've got, unlike the current administration. Rolling Eyes

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:01 am

gnosis wrote:

Cygnus wrote:

Nobody alone could write a 'better' Constitution/Bill of Rights. It would take many different people to decide how the constitution should protect everyone's interests while putting the interests of the country first. Come to think of it, it would be kind of hard to write a new constitution at all today, what with everybody bickering about every damn thing. We would do better to stick with the one we've got.

Yep. We could actually try to follow the one we've got, unlike the current administration. Rolling Eyes

Your focus is much too narrow a slice of time. If you look at the Constitution and the Federal Government the two don't belong together without dirty tricks and intentional misinterpretation.

The Constitution hasn't been faithfully followed for over a century--if it ever was truly.

Just Arrived Joined: Jun 30, 2008 Posts: 7

Saitou wrote:

Your focus is much too narrow a slice of time. If you look at the Constitution and the Federal Government the two don't belong together without dirty tricks and intentional misinterpretation.

The Constitution hasn't been faithfully followed for over a century--if it ever was truly.

Maybe we're long overdue for a change, huh?

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:25 pm

gnosis wrote:

Saitou wrote:

Your focus is much too narrow a slice of time. If you look at the Constitution and the Federal Government the two don't belong together without dirty tricks and intentional misinterpretation.

The Constitution hasn't been faithfully followed for over a century--if it ever was truly.

Maybe we're long overdue for a change, huh?

Power will always be abused when it can be. We need to take power away from the Federal government and return it to the states--and even more so--the people!

I used to think the Republican party was interested in reducing the size of government but then they had all 3 branches and proved they are not.

I also despise big government and the march toward European style socialism which many Democrats and people on the left aspire to.

I'm quite demoralized as a US citizen looking at our government. We have looming unfunded liability issues and an energy crises and they aren't doing anything to solve it.

I'm going to have to hold my nose and vote for McCain. He might do some of the right things whereas Obama is likely to do mostly wrong things (even if his intentions are good).

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 550

McCain is more of an old conservative. As much as he's tried to pander to the Religious Right, I don't think he's that interested in legislating religious matters. A while ago when someone asked about his religion, his response was to ask why that mattered. McCain is starting to look the better choice. I think Obama has an advantage on Iran and foreign policy, though. Ahmadinejad or Chavez can't paint him as the great satan. If he did sit down to talk with Ahmadinejad, it wouldn't give Ahmadinejad a chance to criticize him to distract his people from their problems.

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

McDuffie_for_Congress wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

No one wants "anarchy".

Tut, tut! Many people do want anarchy.

Brian37 wrote:

That is a utopian myth that it can be acheived.

This doesn't appear to be in evidence.

Brian37 wrote:

Regulations are normal and so are governments.

Government is force. I suppose that you are correct, though: force is normal.

Brian37 wrote:

Whatever people agree to as regulations, should not be based on an extreem etheither way. But on pragmatic data that people observe and the common consensus of the people.

Democracy is a form of tyranny.

Brian37 wrote:

There is a reason that on a one lane road in a residential neighborhood that is slated for 25pmh that one does not do 50mph.

Property rights. If I owned a road in a residential neighborhood, I would require drivers drive very slowly.

Brian37 wrote:

People dont drink and drive because we KNOW that when you drink you cannot drive as well as when you are sober.

Wait, what? Many people do drink and drive.

Brian37 wrote:

Empathy is why we have laws against drinking and driving. Both you and I know that if our loved one were harmed by some idiot who chose to do so, or died as a result, we would be angrey over something easly preventable.

No, there are laws against drinking and driving because the owners of the roads decided it would be illegal. If I owned a road, and someone drove drunk on it, I would prevent them from ever driving on my road again.

Quote:

Democracy is a form of tyranny.

Voting in and of itself is not a guarantee of freedom. A pure democracy is mob rule by vote, and yes, is a form of tyranny. Majority rules.

BUT, when you form a government you can, as the founders of America attempted, to provide those outside the voting majority, a way to compete with the voting majority without always being struck down by mere vote. Women have the right to vote, not because of a voting majority, but because of a well written constitution that provided the minority a way to argue that the majority was wrong.


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