Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 163

Thread: The responsibilities of citizenship

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,151

    The responsibilities of citizenship

    American exceptionalism relies on the energy of individuals
    Elaine Vechorik is a freedom fighter in Mississippi, leading the charge to eliminate various gun restrictions, an outdated auto inspection requirement, and civil asset forfeiture. Jennifer Parrish organized a coalition and stopped the State of Minnesota from forcing all home day care providers to join unions. Steve Schopp forced his town in Oregon to back down from spending $120 million dollars from essential services for an overblown urban renewal project. Patti Morrow blocked a national trade association from imposing certification requirements to limit competition for its interior design members in New Hampshire. None of them are paid staffers, just responsible citizens taking action. As the Founders intended, individual citizens are the greatest watchdogs for freedom.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...f-citizenship/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    http://www.wired.com/2014/06/feds-se...ray-documents/

    The government has long asserted it doesn’t need a probable-cause warrant to use stingrays because the device doesn’t collect the content of phone calls and text messages, but instead operates like pen-registers and trap-and-traces, collecting the equivalent of header information. The ACLU and others argue that the devices are more invasive than a trap-and-trace.
    The question should not be what We The People should do to restore liberty, but why are not government agents working to restore liberty, or prevent the infringement of our rights.

    But, we are where we are because some of us do not take the responsibilities of being a good citizen seriously.

    How about this, we define what a citizens' responsibilities are first then move on to the next question.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  3. #3
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,866
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The question should not be what We The People should do to restore liberty, but why are not government agents working to restore liberty, or prevent the infringement of our rights.

    But, we are where we are because some of us do not take the responsibilities of being a good citizen seriously.

    How about this, we define what a citizens' responsibilities are first then move on to the next question.
    interesting project...tho...wouldn't such a discussion initially have to identify and define perspectives (with & without religious overtones) of those responsibilities towards:
    1 other citizens
    2 local community
    3 state level community
    4 national (?)

    each, IMHO, have a very different perspective towards the subject matter per se.

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 10-30-2015 at 09:07 AM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  4. #4
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    interesting project...tho...wouldn't such a discussion initially have to identify and define perspectives (with & without religious overtones) of those responsibilities towards:
    1 other citizens
    Don't deprive a fellow citizen of his rights.
    2 local community
    Apply #1 to the local community.

    3 state level community
    Apply #2 to the state.
    4 national (?)
    Apply #3 to the nation.

    each, IMHO, have a very different perspective towards the subject matter per se.

    ipse
    My respect for my fellow citizen's rights is all that is needed. Government is a poor choice where the respect for individual rights is sought.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 10-30-2015 at 10:00 AM. Reason: rule #19
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  5. #5
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,866
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    My respect for my fellow citizen's rights is all that is needed. Government is a poor choice where the respect for individual rights is sought.
    ok, but as has previous discourse on this forum regarding 'rights' has shown...
    1. what right(s) are you referring to? (i ask because you initially stated liberties in a previous post)
    2. are these right(s) granted or conferred on an individual upon reaching adulthood?
    3. are these right(s) granted automatically across the board ~ men, women, individuals who just got off the boat/crossed the border/born in american airspace?
    4. who grants those right(s)? the king? they community? the state? the government? other citizens? boss hogg?
    5. >???

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 10-30-2015 at 10:10 AM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    I see two types of Citizens around me. I also see non-Citizens, but they will not enter the discussion.

    The Citizen takes part and assumes ownership of their .gov.

    The citizen is just along for the ride. They assume no responsibility and complain the loudest.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  7. #7
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    ok, but as has previous discourse on this forum regarding 'rights' has shown...
    1. what right(s) are you referring to? (i ask because you initially stated liberties in a previous post)
    2. are these right(s) granted or conferred on an individual upon reaching adulthood?
    3. are these right(s) granted automatically across the board ~ men, women, individuals who just got off the boat/crossed the border/born in american airspace?
    4. who grants those right(s)? the king? they community? the state? the government? other citizens? boss hogg?
    5. >???

    ipse
    It is not complicated...until government gets involved...please do not make it complicated.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    American exceptionalism relies on the energy of individuals

    Thank you for the link.

    I've been amazed the last 20 years to see how much good a very small number of persons can do. A dozen or so committed citizens (or Citizens as MSG Laigaie prefers) can do tremendously good things. It requires time and personal sacrifice, but I've seen it work in the arena of advancing RKBA here in Utah.

    I believe that in most cases the greatest enemy of liberty is not the efforts to destroy liberty by our opponents, but apathy, resignation, or otherwise deciding not to be involved by those who should be defending liberty.

    Nor is "government" the problem nor real threat. "Government" is really just the means by which questions of society might be arbitrated in a mostly peaceful manner.

    Those who desire liberty but who don't vote, can't find or recruit any candidates good enough to support with either some money or time, or otherwise refuse to make any efforts to work within the system to repeal or overturn bad laws or to pass needed good laws but who complain endlessly about the problems (MSG Laigaie's small "c" citizens) are the real problem.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    The only responsibility I have is not to inflict harm on others.

    Who does the greatest harm, especially with its monopoly on force.

    Hence why I advocate for no rulers.
    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)

  10. #10
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    The only responsibility I have is not to inflict harm on others.

    Who does the greatest harm, especially with its monopoly on force.

    Hence why I advocate for no rulers.
    Also self education.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  11. #11
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,866
    http://imgur.com/gallery/0PWHV

    examples of CITIZENS i want in my world

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    I see two types of Citizens around me. I also see non-Citizens, but they will not enter the discussion.

    The Citizen takes part and assumes ownership of their .gov.

    The citizen is just along for the ride. They assume no responsibility and complain the loudest.
    Hey! Watch it with that capital c, will ya!
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-31-2015 at 05:25 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    SNIP How about this, we define what a citizens' responsibilities are first then move on to the next question.
    Disclaimer: (see my signature line).

    But, let's say, arguendo (for the sake of discussion/for the sake of argument), that a democratic republic form of government is legitimate. What then might be a citizen's responsibilities?

    Just to pursue one angle, let me approach from the constitution.

    Why have a constitution? To limit government. If one is not concerned about limiting government, there is no need for a constitution. Just select somebody, and tell him to get on with it.

    Thus, one of the responsibilities of a citizen would be to keep a close eye on government, ensuring it adheres to its constitutional restrictions, and carefully--very carefully--selecting any candidate for office.
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-31-2015 at 09:34 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The question should not be what We The People should do to restore liberty, but why are not government agents working to restore liberty, or prevent the infringement of our rights.

    But, we are where we are because some of us do not take the responsibilities of being a good citizen seriously.

    How about this, we define what a citizens' responsibilities are first then move on to the next question.
    A few years ago I read an observation that made a lot of sense:

    Government violates rights because rights are not necessary to whatever it is government wants to do. Rights are restriction, a limitation on what a government agent wants to do.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    SNIP ...The Citizen takes part and assumes ownership of their .gov.
    Not to contradict or argue; just to expand on things a bit.


    1. I want no part of government. I have and take no responsibility whatsoever for government. I deny responsibility emphatically. Just one quick example to give a clue as to why. Some weeks ago a drone strike in Pakistan or Afghanistan killed a number of innocents at a wedding or funeral. Murders of this kind have long been characterized as "collateral damage." I want no part of this. None. Zero. Zip.

    The fedgov, and three state governments, have passed up more than twenty chances to check whether I consented to be ruled by them, which is the only way I could be responsible for their actions and would have to include both a way out for me if they acted irresponsibly and a way for me to genuinely effectively prevent them from acting irresponsibly. I'm talking here about tax returns. I've sent in more than twenty tax returns. And, not once did government ask me to indicate that I consented to be ruled by them or accept responsibility for their actions. They knew exactly who I was, and they knew exactly where I lived--they mailed the tax forms to me in my name with my SSN on the label for a number of those years.

    Now, lets look at that last point a little more closely. Supporters of government (as conceived today) will say it is the most important social institution. Some will argue marriage is the most important social institution. (I hold that since one has to ask permission--a marriage license--government holds itself above marriage.) But, whichever is held more important--government or marriage--I can say this: for all its asserted importance, government has never once asked me whether I consent. Neither, agree to be responsible, nor agree to be ruled in the first place. Not once. Ever.

    But, here is the little datum that really puts things in perspective. On every single one of my federal tax returns the government did think it important to ask me me whether I wanted to contribute to the presidential campaign fund. They couldn't be bothered to ask me to sign that I consented to ruled or responsible. But, there was enough room on the page to ask whether I wanted a dollar or three to go to the presidential election fund. Against what they themselves will argue is the most important social question of all.
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-31-2015 at 10:22 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Disclaimer: (see my signature line).

    But, let's say, arguendo (for the sake of discussion/for the sake of argument), that a democratic republic form of government is legitimate. What then might be a citizen's responsibilities?

    Just to pursue one angle, let me approach from the constitution.

    Why have a constitution? To limit government. If one is not concerned about limiting government, there is no need for a constitution. Just select somebody, and tell him to get on with it.

    Thus, one of the responsibilities of a citizen would be to keep a close eye on government, ensuring it adheres to its constitutional restrictions, and carefully--very carefully--selecting any candidate for office.
    Well said. I sometimes see the faintest flicker go off in someone's head when I try to explain this very notion, that the Constitution was made to define (/limit/constrain, etc.) government and the Bill of Rights were meant to chain it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    A few years ago I read an observation that made a lot of sense:

    Government violates rights because rights are not necessary to whatever it is government wants to do. Rights are restriction, a limitation on what a government agent wants to do.
    Thanks for passing this on. I hope you do not mind if I keep it for my own by sharing it with others as well?
    Last edited by Rusty Young Man; 10-31-2015 at 11:32 PM.
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Young Man View Post
    Well said. I sometimes see the faintest flicker go off in someone's head when I try to explain this very notion, that the Constitution was made to define (/limit/constrain, etc.) government and the Bill of Rights were meant to chain it.



    Thanks for passing this on. I hope you do not mind if I keep it for my own by sharing it with others as well?
    Oh! I have no standing to mind. Another originated it, not I. I am sure the author would be delighted you shared it with others.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  18. #18
    Regular Member DeSchaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    The Citizen takes part and assumes ownership of their .gov.

    The civilian is just along for the ride. They assume no responsibility and complain the loudest.
    This is a great paraphrase of Heinlein. The man was brilliant before his time.

    A citizen accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic, defending it with his life, a civilian does not.

    The biggest problem we have is that the idiots who run things are the ones trying to cram their ways down our throats, yet want no part of it when those ways don't work or worse. The real leaders, the ones with truly the best interests of everyone at heart, get nowhere. Worse than that, they get discouraged and don't even try.
    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
    Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
    Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
    Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
    -Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratification Convention, June 5, 1788

  19. #19
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by DeSchaine View Post
    This is a great paraphrase of Heinlein. The man was brilliant before his time..
    Starship troop-ers stands alone in Heinlein's works as seeming to advocate for nationalistic totalitarism.

    The vast majority of his books deride government, and push personal freedom above all (responsibility IS a personal duty to self, family and friends).

    Look at his multi book story arcs.

    Lazarus Long ftw.
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 11-01-2015 at 09:35 AM.
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,151
    "The difference, I said carefully, "lies in the field of civic virtue. A soldier accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member, defending it, if need be, with his life. The civilian does not." Starship Troopers (Putnam, 1959) page 26

    Note that civilian has a particular and hypothetical meaning in the context of Heinlein's book, a civilian has not completed his term of federal service that a veteran has completed. Further ETA soldier, here, is more like marine, once a Marine, always a Marine. Semper Fidelis

    The movie is an abominable cartoon. The book is a examination of military enfranchisement, hardly of "nationalistic totalitarianism."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starsh...rs#Controversy
    Last edited by Nightmare; 11-01-2015 at 10:09 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    "The difference, I said carefully, "lies in the field of civic virtue. A soldier accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member, defending it, if need be, with his life. The civilian does not." Starship Troopers (Putnam, 1959) page 26

    Note that civilian has a particular and hypothetical meaning in the context of Heinlein's book, a civilian has not completed his term of federal service that a veteran has completed. Further ETA soldier, here, is more like marine, once a Marine, always a Marine. Semper Fidelis

    The movie is an abominable cartoon. The book is a examination of military enfranchisement, hardly of "nationalistic totalitarianism."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starsh...rs#Controversy
    His normal hero is a draft Dodger.
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    His normal hero is a draft Dodger.
    RAH published about a hundred stories and I have read them all. I don't recall, off the top of my head, any draft dodgers, though there may have been some.

    I might consider Evelyn Cyril Gordon, a honorably discharged veteran of a Southeast Asia conflict, as his stereotypical hero-protagonist. Glory Road was published in 1963 and I was awarded my Vietnam Service Medal in 1970.

    Robert Anson Heinlein's biography might be illuminating for YOU. He was an engineering graduate of the Naval Academy discharged with tuberculosis, and a registered Republican (Patterson, William H. Robert A. Heinlein: In Dialogue with His Century, Vol. 1 - Learning Curve (1907-1948) (Tor Books, August 2010) called a "flaming liberal," (also socialist, nudist, vegetarian, all very chic in Sixties California). Late in his life he built a SHTF retreat-home in the Santa Cruz mountains not far from UCSC, where his archives are held.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 11-01-2015 at 06:58 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,151

    The Forever War by Joe Haldeman, sold to Warner Bros May 2015

    While verifying my recollections of Heinlein, I stumbled across this;

    https://deadline.com/2015/04/channin...nd-1201418549/

    Warner Bros outbid Sony late Thursday after a spirited negotiation and is now in business with a new possible franchise, The Forever War with Channing Tatum on board to star. The script is being penned by Jon Spaihts and will be based on Joe Haldeman’s book. Richard Edlund had the rights to the book for 27 years, and it had been at Fox for the past seven with Ridley Scott, but after several scripts, it never made it to the big screen. Hopefully, this time, the 41-year-old classic sci-fi novel — said to be one of the best books of the genre — finally will get made.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  24. #24
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    The only responsibility I have is not to inflict harm on others.
    That is the bare minimum to avoid harming others. Most men recognize a responsibility (moral, rather than legal) to leave society better than they found it if possible. The American Dream is for each generation to do a little better than the generation before, That tends to require some sacrifice on the part of parents and extended family, volunteers to work with youth, etc.

    Doing no harm is a necessary first step. Doing some good is also needed, even if not appropriately legally enforced.

    What is legally enforced is some "fair (or just) share" of support toward the maintenance of our government. User taxes work for many things like roads. But a defensive military is required to repel enemies, etc.


    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Hence why I advocate for no rulers.
    Advocate all you want. But history is pretty clear that there will be "rulers" of some kind, eventually. Geographic isolation may provide protection for a season. But sooner or later, hostile forces will arrive, they always do. And you've either prepared ahead of time, or you get to play the role of American Indian, Irish, or other conquered people.

    So I prefer our constitutional republic where we select for limited seasons, government officials to serve the people. The system isn't perfect. But it sure beats the alternatives I've seen, including anarchy.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    SNIP Most men recognize a responsibility (moral, rather than legal) to leave society better than they found it if possible.
    The hidden premise, of course, being that Utbagpiper and others of similar attitude are more than willing to tell you what your responsibilities are.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Page 1 of 7 123 ... 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
  •