Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 253

Thread: I have seen the light, Republicans ARE EVIL...

  1. #51
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley View Post
    Maybe someone can articulate it better.
    I'll bet your articulate someone does not use the word "articulate."

  2. #52
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,330
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    Can you please show me this mythical document called the "social contract" that you and others claim I am party to?


    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    [snip]

    In reality, a coherent and internally-consistent definition of "liberty" limits one to acts which do not limit others' ability to do the same.


    [snip]
    The above is a Social Contract.

    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    I can't recall ever signing such a document, but every time I've heard it invoked, it is followed by an attempt to steal either my liberty or my property.
    The document doesn't exist, it is more of a base notion. You didn't have to sign the document since you were born under it's unspoken Principles. You are over-concerned for Liberty and Property. Why are you so worried? It's not as if you are going to be rounded up, and placed in a camp or something.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 03-16-2012 at 12:55 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  3. #53
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Giles County, Virginia
    Posts
    10,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Then properly define Liberty for me, and we can discuss it. I will tell you whether or not I agree.
    I just did. You must have missed it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley View Post
    Not arguing, just a question.

    Isn't that exactly the definition of liberty? Aren't you confusing our social contract to not impede liberty with actual liberty?

    I mean isn't liberty exactly the ability to do whatever we want and isnt it just our social contract an agreement to limit our liberty so as to not infringe on others and possibly be infringed on?

    That's always been my take on it. That i am free to do whatever but freely agree to the social contract for our mutual benefit.
    I never signed any contract!

    Invaluable though Locke's contributions to the understanding of rights were, they are diminished somewhat by their reliance on the rather dated notion of a "social contract". There are too many counterexamples to rely on its justification -- e.g. people born into ostensibly "free societies" and unable to escape circumstance. While that's perhaps not quite as common as the "compassionate left" would argue, it happens nevertheless. A necessary prerequisite for the existence of a "contract" is the ability to opt out, either by not entering it (for an explicit contract), or to exit it (for an implicit contract), which in the context of "society" is the ability to leave that society into which you were (rather forcibly) born.

    Both "liberty" and "freedom" are used in a variety of contexts, and can mean a variety of related, but distinct concepts. But, as a sociopolitical construct, the meaning of "liberty" is essentially self-limiting.

    As a sociopolitical construct, liberty must be shared by all, or it does not exist. For instance, imagine a society of two individuals. Obviously, if one of the individuals owns the other, the society does not represent liberty. Only by neither individual owning the other can the system be said to represent liberty.

    I cannot have the liberty to kill you, because you would then lack the liberty to kill me. Therefore, neither of us has the liberty to kill the other.

    Liberty, universal and shared, is limited thus. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. My right to do as I please cannot include preventing you from doing as you please, and vice versa.

    No social contract necessary. You stay out of my business (not you especially). Simple as that.
    Last edited by marshaul; 03-16-2012 at 01:06 PM.

  4. #54
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Giles County, Virginia
    Posts
    10,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    The above is a Social Contract.
    Nope. Words mean things, remember? See above.

    Nice try though.
    Last edited by marshaul; 03-16-2012 at 12:57 PM.

  5. #55
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,560

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    The document doesn't exist, it is more of a base notion. You didn't have to sign the document since you were born under it's unspoken Principles.
    I was born into it? Kind of like slavery, eh?

    Sorry, troll, but valid agreements can only be entered into consciously and voluntarily.

    You are over-concerned for Liberty and Property. Why are you so worried? It's not as if you are going to be rounded up, and placed in a camp or something.
    Sure, because you socialists have never stolen anyone's liberty and property, rounded folks up, or put them in camps. Yep, that's never happened. Right...

    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  6. #56
    Regular Member Stanley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Reston, VA
    Posts
    408
    I don't recall voluntarily agreeing to the constitution (well before joining the army) or our laws but I was forced into obeying them...

    How is this not different??? I truly don't understand why one is bad and the other is ok...
    "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism." - George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

  7. #57
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley View Post
    I don't recall voluntarily agreeing to the constitution (well before joining the army) or our laws but I was forced into obeying them...

    How is this not different??? I truly don't understand why one is bad and the other is ok...
    The Constitution is a physical document, created by men, with a clear mechanism for altering it, and a clear precedent for abolishing it, if need be.

    The mythical "social contract" is none of those things, and is not written down, so it can mean different things to different people. Beretta believes it entitles her to the wealth of others if they possess x+1 amount of it.

    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  8. #58
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    15,436
    If you limit your idea to social contract as not infringing on the liberties of others, then you are on to something.

    If you construe it to mean we are obligated to "take care of others" or surrender our liberties because you feel the government does a better job.....

    I am under no 'social contract' to educate your children, take care of your elderly parents/grandparents, give up my property without due compensation for (too numerous to list), pay for my workers health care, or their retirement etc......
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #59
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,330
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    I was born into it? Kind of like slavery, eh?
    Yes, you are a slave. Sorry to break the news to you.

    Sorry, troll, but valid agreements can only be entered into consciously and voluntarily.
    You have the Liberty to decide the validity of agreements. You do not have the Liberty to not suffer the consequences of not abiding by the agreement.


    Sure, because you socialists have never stolen anyone's liberty and property, rounded folks up, or put them in camps. Yep, that's never happened. Right..
    There were a number of factors that contributed to Hitlers mass murder. Socialism was not a necessary component.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  10. #60
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,330
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    The Constitution is a physical document, created by men, with a clear mechanism for altering it, and a clear precedent for abolishing it, if need be.

    The mythical "social contract" is none of those things, and is not written down, so it can mean different things to different people. Beretta believes it entitles her to the wealth of others if they possess x+1 amount of it.
    There is your Social Contract, the Constitution.

    I have no interest in wealth. Just a modest, simple existence.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 03-16-2012 at 01:09 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  11. #61
    Regular Member Stanley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Reston, VA
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    The Constitution is a physical document, created by men, with a clear mechanism for altering it, and a clear precedent for abolishing it, if need be.

    The mythical "social contract" is none of those things, and is not written down, so it can mean different things to different people. Beretta believes it entitles her to the wealth of others if they possess x+1 amount of it.
    Ahhh...

    I get what you are saying.
    "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism." - George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

  12. #62
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Yes, you are a slave. Sorry to break the news to you.
    ^Moron.

    You have the Liberty to decide the validity of agreements. You do not have the Liberty to not suffer the consequences of not abiding by the agreement.
    This sounds a lot like your "a mandate isn't force because you don't have to agree to the mandate, just be fined or imprisoned if you disagree" argument. I'm done playing semantic games with someone who doesn't know how to properly use the English language.

    There were a number of factors that contributed to Hitlers mass murder. Socialism was not a necessary component.
    I wasn't thinking only of Hitler.

    But yes, collectivism, the idea that individuals are the property of the State and may be used to fulfill its ends, is at the heart of any abuse of rights and liberties.

    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  13. #63
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,330
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    If you limit your idea to social contract as not infringing on the liberties of others, then you are on to something.

    If you construe it to mean we are obligated to "take care of others" or surrender our liberties because you feel the government does a better job.....

    I am under no 'social contract' to educate your children, take care of your elderly parents/grandparents, give up my property without due compensation for (too numerous to list), pay for my workers health care, or their retirement etc......
    You are presenting a wonderful alternative to the current system
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  14. #64
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I have no interest in wealth. Just a modest, simple existence.
    Paid for by others who have actually worked for their daily bread, of course.

    You are a low-down thief, no different from any street criminal.

    The only difference is that you are too cowardly to commit the deed yourself, and prefer to outsource your theft to the State.

    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  15. #65
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Giles County, Virginia
    Posts
    10,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley View Post
    I don't recall voluntarily agreeing to the constitution (well before joining the army) or our laws but I was forced into obeying them...

    How is this not different??? I truly don't understand why one is bad and the other is ok...
    As I said, the means are the ends. Justification cannot be made solely on outcome.

    I do maintain that a "social contract" necessarily implies an abrogation of individual right. Words mean things, and all.

    With that said, you've touched upon one of the great debates of liberalism, an issue unsettled even amongst the libertarian intelligentsia (come to think of it, they actually haven't settled very much ).

    I highly suggest you read the following:

    No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

    Most interesting food for thought.

    Incidentally, because you are, quite understandably, sensitive to such issues -- the topic at hand is secession, initially that of the South from the Union, but then moving on to that of the individual -- keep in mind that the author, Lysander Spooner, was a respected and proven abolitionist whose prior work was cited routinely by many of the head figures of the abolitionist movement. I do remember our prior conversations, and I'm not trying to insult you by recommending this work.
    Last edited by marshaul; 03-16-2012 at 01:18 PM.

  16. #66
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,330
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    ^Moron.
    Don't go getting all worked up about this. The next step is acceptance.

    This sounds a lot like your "a mandate isn't force because you don't have to agree to the mandate, just be fined or imprisoned if you disagree" argument. I'm done playing semantic games with someone who doesn't know how to properly use the English language.
    You are right, I do not know how to properly use the English language.

    I wasn't thinking only of Hitler.
    Neither was I, just an example.

    But yes, collectivism, the idea that individuals are the property of the State and may be used to fulfill its ends, is at the heart of any abuse of rights and liberties.
    You are associating Collectivism with individuals being property of the State; I don't agree with the association. I agree that such an association is an abuse of Rights and Liberties.

    The State may use you to fulfill it's ends, if it sees fit. Or do you have the Power to overthrow the State? I don't think you have that Power. The only way that you might be able to is a Collective...interesting.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  17. #67
    Regular Member Stanley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Reston, VA
    Posts
    408
    Hold that thought! Lol
    Last edited by Stanley; 03-16-2012 at 01:17 PM.
    "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism." - George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

  18. #68
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,330
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    Paid for by others who have actually worked for their daily bread, of course.

    You are a low-down thief, no different from any street criminal.

    The only difference is that you are too cowardly to commit the deed yourself, and prefer to outsource your theft to the State.
    You never know. I may be a sophisticated bank robber.

    If the Government steal from the rich (as you term it), and gives to the poor (may be me, may not be), then the poor individual accepting the money is a criminal? Go on, I am intrigued.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  19. #69
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,330
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    As I said, the means are the ends. Justification cannot be made solely on outcome.

    I do maintain that a "social contract" necessarily implies an abrogation of individual right. Words mean things, and all.

    With that said, you've touched upon one of the great debates of liberalism, an issue unsettled even amongst the libertarian intelligentsia (come to think of it, they actually haven't settled very much ).

    I highly suggest you read the following:

    No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

    Most interesting food for thought.

    Incidentally, because you are, quite understandably, sensitive to such issues -- the topic at hand is secession, initially that of the South from the Union, but then moving on to that of the individual -- keep in mind that the author, Lysander Spooner, was a respected and proven abolitionist whose prior work was cited routinely by many of the head figures of the abolitionist movement. I do remember our prior conversations, and I'm not trying to insult you by recommending this work.
    So, the Constitution is therefore invalid. Shocker! Then there is a argument that if the Constitution is not done away with, it is assumed to be valid.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 03-16-2012 at 01:21 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  20. #70
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Giles County, Virginia
    Posts
    10,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You never know. I may be a sophisticated bank robber.

    If the Government steal from the rich (as you term it), and gives to the poor (may be me, may not be), then the poor individual accepting the money is a criminal? Go on, I am intrigued.
    Only the aggressor is, or ought to be, the criminal.

    Are the police acting aggressively or criminally when they sell recovered stolen goods whose owner could not be found or identified?

  21. #71
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Giles County, Virginia
    Posts
    10,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    So, the Constitution is therefore invalid. Shocker! Then there is a argument that if the Constitution is not done away with, it is assumed to be valid.
    The Constitution defines the extent of and restrains government, not me.

    Think, B92FSL, think! You know this stuff.
    Last edited by marshaul; 03-16-2012 at 01:25 PM.

  22. #72
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,330
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Only the aggressor is, or ought to be, the criminal.

    Are the police acting aggressively or criminally when they sell recovered stolen goods whose owner could not be found or identified?
    There is a flaw in your question. How does the police know that the property was stolen if the individual is not identified? Without a victim of theft you have no stolen property.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  23. #73
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Giles County, Virginia
    Posts
    10,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    There is a flaw in your question. How does the police know that the property was stolen if the individual is not identified? Without a victim of theft you have no stolen property.
    Perhaps the thief admitted the property was stolen. Perhaps the property has some indicator that it is stolen, but it does not identify its owner. Perhaps its owner is known, but dead, with no heirs. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

    There may be no criminal complaint without a victim, but that does not invalidate the exercise.
    Last edited by marshaul; 03-16-2012 at 01:28 PM.

  24. #74
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,330
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    The Constitution defines the extent of and restrains government, not me.

    Think, B92FSL, think!
    I agree.

    You offered the link: " It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. [This essay was written in 1869." http://jim.com/treason.htm

    The author of your link states that the Constitution at most is a contract between individuals of the time, more specifically, a contract between individuals that signed the contract. meaning, if an individual did not sign, or refused to sign the contract, they are not obligated to it; the Government can mandate you abide by it with the alternative being a punishment (the threat of force).
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  25. #75
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Giles County, Virginia
    Posts
    10,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I agree.

    You offered the link: " It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. [This essay was written in 1869." http://jim.com/treason.htm

    The author of your link states that the Constitution at most is a contract between individuals of the time, more specifically, a contract between individuals that signed the contract. meaning, if an individual did not sign, or refused to sign the contract, they are not obligated to it; the Government can mandate you abide by it with the alternative being a punishment (the threat of force).
    Yes, hence the invalidity of the premise that every individual necessarily is party to a "social contract" by nothing more than virtue of having been born.

    Whether government is justified in its punishment is a question of initiatory force, that is to say: who committed the initial act of aggression? Although, I prefer restitution (wherever possible) to punishment, as being more in line with right.

    I am entitled to recompense as a victim of aggression. I needn't rely on a social contract to justify that.
    Last edited by marshaul; 03-16-2012 at 01:34 PM.

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •