• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Something from 1948 to think about

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
You wouldn't be the first to say the USA is a police state. Property is most definitely owned. Think differently? Try occupying property that someone else owns. I know what will happen in the south, with luck the occupier will get tossed out on their ass and maybe arrested. Without luck the occupier will occupy a small pine subterranean home.

Two words: Eminent Domain. Although, philosophically, my argument goes back so far that it moves into the concept of "Property," and from that "ownership v. possession."

What I am attempting to reveal is that until individuals understand that all of these concepts (Tyranny, Ownership, Property, Freedom, Liberty, ....) are constructs, and that constructs are subjective - the wheel of our current politics will continue to move round-and-round.
 
Last edited:

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Two words: Eminent Domain. Although, philosophically, my argument goes back so far that it moves into the concept of "Property," and from that "ownership v. possession."

An exception to property rights. Even that can be contested and stopped. Of course if people give up their rights to property to the monster that is government then of course they don't have any rights.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
An exception to property rights. Even that can be contested and stopped. Of course if people give up their rights to property to the monster that is government then of course they don't have any rights.

You miss the point, you don't get to determine that; the Federal Government determines that. As things stand, none of us own any 'thing', we merely possess the 'thing'.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
You miss the point, you don't get to determine that; the Federal Government determines that. As things stand, none of us own any 'thing', we merely possess the 'thing'.

No I don't miss the point. The feds were given the power in some instances to take (after giving just compensation) private property. If there were no private ownership then there would be no need for compensation, nor would there be redress. Juries are not the federal government.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP Duty to fellow man? Individuals have no Duty to one another.

Huh!?! Do you really hold this as truth? Or, are we just on different harmonics of the same idea?

I ask because if literal, you are essentially saying no one is obligated to recognize your right to self-defense; no one has a responsibility to avoid committing a crime or tort against you.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Huh!?! Do you really hold this as truth? Or, are we just on different harmonics of the same idea?

I ask because if literal, you are essentially saying no one is obligated to recognize your right to self-defense; no one has a responsibility to avoid committing a crime or tort against you.

I do not hold it as 'truth'. Duty is established, not fundamental.

As to the latter portion of your response, please, do not mistaken "responsibility" with "duty"; both terms are context synonymous.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
No I don't miss the point. The feds were given the power in some instances to take (after giving just compensation) private property. If there were no private ownership then there would be no need for compensation, nor would there be redress. Juries are not the federal government.

Thank you for solidifying my assertion. "Compensation" at best implies "ownership" but does not confirm "ownership." You are jumping to conclusion correlating the Federal Government offering compensation for property. The Federal Government compensates you, yes. Don't act as if you have a choice to say "no." The Federal Government is "making you an offer that you can't refuse."

I will offer you an example:

I have children. I ask one of my children, "Can you please take out the garbage?". Now, my child assumes that the implication is a request, that they can tell me "no," and not take out the garbage. The result, they decide to not take out the garbage. I see my child has not taken out the garbage, and ask them "Why did you not take out the garbage?". My child responds, "You asked me if I can please take the garbage out, and I did not want to take the garbage out, so I didn't." I then remind my child that they should not have assumed the implication of my friendly request that they "please" take out the garbage was merely so; I remind them that the implication although in the form of a request is actually a direction 'to do', basically, a not-negotiative demand tucked neatly into a friendly 'request'.
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
You are right OP'r. To reference the video: "ism" is, and has been referenced on numerous occasions with-in online discussions. All forms of "ism" is not a 'bad thing', unless there is some person on here that is interested in stepping up to declare "Capitalism" a 'bad thing'.

What I enjoyed about the video, the mood of the video, is the sense of Nationalism (there we go with those damn "isms" again). Americans have little pride in America, and no sense of duty - both of those 'things' are destructive to America, IMO.

Amen to that ... and yet, it was 'gratifying' to see the way so many young Americans filled the ranks of the military after 9/11 and are still joining in record numbers today.
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
For example, lots of Americans decry government spending (see the T.E.A. Party, for example). But, then this same group is the first to stand up and salute veterans, thank for their service, and take great pride in having a very powerful military. Lots of pride there. But, they seem to overlook that this giant, powerful military costs a gazillion dollars and in the last ten years has been one of the biggest engines of national debt.

I disagree with the bolded ... it is not necessarily the military expenditure that is the primary driver of the national debt, but rather it is the entitlement programs and socialistic spending that was the primary debt driver ... until the bailouts started. And, yes, Bush had his hand in the bailouts, but like Reagan and deregulation, Bush tried to avoid that route, but was forced to participate through Congressional pressure IMHO.
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
Two words: Eminent Domain. Although, philosophically, my argument goes back so far that it moves into the concept of "Property," and from that "ownership v. possession."

What I am attempting to reveal is that until individuals understand that all of these concepts (Tyranny, Ownership, Property, Freedom, Liberty, ....) are constructs, and that constructs are subjective - the wheel of our current politics will continue to move round-and-round.

Well, heck, by that logic, civilization is nothing more than a costruct (which it is :D) ... but it is also the basis from which we begin otherwise we have chaos and anarchy (bad things IMHO).

What I see you doing is preaching to folks and starting confrontational debates with incendiary comments. I sometimes wonder if you are not an anarchist at heart :lol:

Most folks on this forum are ADULTS and generally don't need to be schooled by someone on what Tyranny, Ownership, Property, Freedom, Liberty, etc. actually mean. Those terms seem to generally be of a definition to individuals that is close enough to each other's that they are talking apples to apples most of the time, except when debating you :cool:

All definitions are subjective to an individual ... based on their contextual use of a term. No need to nit-pick all possible definitions nor to jump to the least applicable definition just to further a need for creating drama.

IMHO the reason that the wheel of our current politics goes round-and-round is because of the stranglehold the 'old guard' politicians have on Congress, and the undue influence Corporate America has by way of PAC money and lobbyists. You know, graft and corruption.
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
No I don't miss the point. The feds were given the power in some instances to take (after giving just compensation) private property. If there were no private ownership then there would be no need for compensation, nor would there be redress. Juries are not the federal government.

Actually in this article a cite is made to Kelo vs New London in which the government was granted the power to take in any and all instances, and IMHO, the concept of "just compensation" is a moving target as far as the government is concerned ... they seem to regularly use the lowest market value they can find instead of a fair market value to base compensation on. And if you think any citizen has recourse through the courts, think again ... a google search returns page after page of links to horror stories about eminent domain being used by fed, state and local governments to take property from a citizen, and then turn it over to a corporation which will see returns in the multi-millions of dollars from the use of the property ... and yet, the original owner of the property may have only been compensated at a rate of pennies on the dollar, or their "legal recourse" consisted of a hearing before a single judge ... no juries in sight.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
...
What I see you doing is preaching to folks and starting confrontational debates with incendiary comments. I sometimes wonder if you are not an anarchist at heart :lol:
...

No B92 is just our long term resident troll. I have yet to see a post that doesn't range from Socrates to Nietzsche in tactic: no real stance just an attack on anyone who takes one with the general idea that taking a metaphorical stand for something is stupid.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
No B92 is just our long term resident troll. I have yet to see a post that doesn't range from Socrates to Nietzsche in tactic: no real stance just an attack on anyone who takes one with the general idea that taking a metaphorical stand for something is stupid.

Nice hammer, good aim - with the exception of my behavior being referred to as trolling.

I just think it is funny to watch individuals treat subjective constructs as though the constructs are objective fundamental truths. I am not declaring that humans throw their hands into the air, and give up. I am merely promoting a reevaluation of perspective for the purpose of reevaluation, and not revaluation.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I disagree with the bolded ... it is not necessarily the military expenditure that is the primary driver of the national debt, but rather it is the entitlement programs and socialistic spending that was the primary debt driver ... until the bailouts started. And, yes, Bush had his hand in the bailouts, but like Reagan and deregulation, Bush tried to avoid that route, but was forced to participate through Congressional pressure IMHO.

I understand. I do agree that entitlement spending is huge. Keep it in context, though. My comment was to show the disconnect between the subjects, not make definitive statement as to which was greater, lesser, or worse-er.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I do not hold it as 'truth'. Duty is established, not fundamental.

As to the latter portion of your response, please, do not mistaken "responsibility" with "duty"; both terms are context synonymous.

This is kinda what I thought might be going on. Glad I asked. Thanks for clarifying.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Nice hammer, good aim - with the exception of my behavior being referred to as trolling.

I just think it is funny to watch individuals treat subjective constructs as though the constructs are objective fundamental truths. I am not declaring that humans throw their hands into the air, and give up. I am merely promoting a reevaluation of perspective for the purpose of reevaluation, and not revaluation.

Thanks, I'll take the complement, serious or not; I think I'm ok with a framing hammer. Perhaps trolling is a bit harsh, but I can't think of a descriptor that fits closer otherwise it would have taken a sentence.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
This is kinda what I thought might be going on. Glad I asked. Thanks for clarifying.

Sorry, I posted: "As to the latter portion of your response, please, do not mistaken "responsibility" with "duty"; both terms are context synonymous."

What I meant to state is: As to the latter portion of your response, please, do not mistaken "responsibility" with "duty"; both terms are not context synonymous.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Sorry, I posted: "As to the latter portion of your response, please, do not mistaken "responsibility" with "duty"; both terms are context synonymous."

What I meant to state is: As to the latter portion of your response, please, do not mistaken "responsibility" with "duty"; both terms are not context synonymous.

I wonder where you think a person is responsible for anything to do with another person.
 
Top