Something from 1948 to think about

[Beretta92FSLady]

Would you please expand on that thought, I am not sure that I follow you. Thanks- s.K.

Nah, I prefer to leave you hanging.


Regards,


Sara Mae

 

[Citizen]

SNIP But do not ever let me hear a single complaint come from you about what a mess the government has made of anything. You have not earned the right.

To All Readers:

The idea quoted above crops up from time to time on the forum. I would like to put it to bed, once and for all:

Voting or not voting has nothing to do with a right to complain.

Every one of us has a natural right, an unalienable right, to complain. It is not dependent on voting. All it takes is to be harmed, taxed, infringed, conscripted, etc. against our consent.

It is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Amendment I, last clause--the right to petition government for redress of grievances.

At the time of ratification of the Bill of Rights, not everyone was allowed to vote. Yet, it was well understood that anyone could petition for redress of grievance. How did women get the vote? Under the theory in the quote above, they could never seek the vote (petition their legislators) because, well, they hadn't voted.

Spread the word. Complaining is an enumerated right, and unalienable right. It does not require voting. All it takes is for a natural, unalienable right to be infringed without your consent.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

What the above person posted.

 

[Citizen]

Because you don't vote...you allow it to happen. Same thing.

This is another idea I would like to see put to bed once and for all.

Its right up there with "if you're not with us, you're against us." It fails to consider there may be other factors the non-voter, non-consenter is taking into account, and is accusing him for taking those things into account, while it itself refuses to consider them.

I've got $5 that says Thomas More lost his head over a very similar idea. More refused to support Henry VIII's divorce and his assumption of power of the Catholic Church in England. This was bad enough. But, I suspect there were voices that accused him of putting his conscience (about God and church) ahead of the political considerations of the day--no divorce would equal no successor would equal civil wars over the succession. I'm betting the only way Henry got a treason conviction against More was because the jurors refused to credit that More might be witholding his assent based on conscience. And remember, Henry had to violate both Magna Carta and the his own coronation oath in order to take over the Church in England. The immunity of the Church is promised in both Magna Carta and his coronation oath. Essentially, Henry had to break the law in order to have his way. And, More objected. He was literally a conscientous objector. It cost him his life.

------------------------

I am absolutely convinced, through personal observation, that the fedgov is a stinking, putrid mass of self-interested, unalienable rights-violating politicians who would sell your rights and mine for a few bucks from a lobbyist towards re-election.

Both the Republicans and Democrats are just two wings of the same party--the Government Party. Neither is ever really out of power. It hasn't mattered which held the little more power. Laws, regulations, and infringements have gone up. Spending went up. The national debt was driven to the moon. Rights, freedom, and liberty went down. Neither party has really worked--really worked--for the actual benefit of the people. Not in ages and ages.

I absolutely will not afflict my fellow human beings with such a candidate. I will not vote for such a candidate. There is nobody I hate so much I would wish such a politician on them. I do not owe it to the short-sighted to vote to avoid their idea that I let it happen. NO! The scum-bag politician is the first person responsible for his own actions. I will not vote for one scum-bag in order to prevent another scum-bag just because others are willing to tolerate some scum-bag. I'm not willing to consent to (or support) either scum-bag. Voting for one or the other just empowers the winner, and lends my implied consent. No. No. No! NO!

I typically only vote on bond issues (usually "no") and state constitutional amendments, almost never on candidates. If Ron Paul wasn't running, I would not be voting in the presidential election at all.

 

[SourKraut]

Nah, I prefer to leave you hanging.

How niggardly of you.

Also, I checked my entire library- "germanian" is not a word as far as my research shows. I will assume it is a racial slur, unless you would like to defend it as a legitiment English word. I hope you can defend it too. I abhor racists.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

How niggardly of you.

Also, I checked my entire library- "germanian" is not a word as far as my research shows. I will assume it is a racial slur, unless you would like to defend it as a legitiment English word. I hope you can defend it too. I abhor racists.

Yes, yes, you do abhor racists. I believe you.


"Germanian," just another word. "Germanian" requires no defense for legitimation, and if there is such a thing as "legitimate English word," still, no requirement for defense. I will keep "Germanian" to stand as it is posted in my response to you.

 

[SourKraut]

I see....

Assclownian is not a word, as a matter of fact I just now mabe it up. Perhaps assclownian will be my new pet name for my new favorite friend on this fourm.

Don't worry sweethart, it is a term of endearment that also implies- "you poor thing, you poor thing, you poor thing".....ad infinitum.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I see....

Assclownian is not a word, as a matter of fact I just now mabe it up. Perhaps assclownian will be my new pet name for my new favorite friend on this fourm.

Don't worry sweethart, it is a term of endearment that also implies- "you poor thing, you poor thing, you poor thing".....ad infinitum.

Obviously you do not know the difference between a reference to a name as "Germanian," and naming an individual on the forum "assclownian." I am not sure why I am pointing this obvious difference - I am sure you are aware of it.

 

[okboomer]

SourKraut and Beretta92FSLady

I would like to ask both of you to stop it.

Neither of your latest posts are relevant to the topic of this thread.

Thank you for your participation.

 

[SourKraut]

Bla bla bla, bla bla bla. Bla bla. BLA!

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

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.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Americans have little pride in America, and no sense of duty - both of those 'things' are destructive to America, IMO.

Oh, I think Americans do. Watch an NFL game or NASCAR race. Lots of Americans do. Lots.

The problem is which aspects of "America" they take pride in, which things are considered a duty, or more importantly, which crucial things are overlooked as duty.

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.

For example, I think an awful lot of people consider it their duty to obey the law; but quickly forget they have a duty to leave their fellow men and women keep the product of their own labor. Thus, we have a giant class warfare manifested in the entrenched political parties who use that class warfare to keep themselves in power. Americans have a sense of duty. Its just badly skewed in some areas.

We'd all be a lot better off if more people understood that their first duty is to not infringe the natural rights of their fellow human beings. Which is really just another way of saying look out for and preserve the other fellow's liberty.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Oh, I think Americans do. Watch an NFL game or NASCAR race. Lots of Americans do. Lots.

Nostalgia, that is what those two sports serve as (is the latter a sport?).

The problem is which aspects of "America" they take pride in, which things are considered a duty, or more importantly, which crucial things are overlooked as duty.

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.

For example, I think an awful lot of people consider it their duty to obey the law; but quickly forget they have a duty to leave their fellow men and women keep the product of their own labor. Thus, we have a giant class warfare manifested in the entrenched political parties who use that class warfare to keep themselves in power. Americans have a sense of duty. Its just badly skewed in some areas.

We'd all be a lot better off if more people understood that their first duty is to not infringe the natural rights of their fellow human beings. Which is really just another way of saying look out for and preserve the other fellow's liberty.

Duty to fellow man? Individuals have no Duty to one another. That is why we manufacture things such as a 'sense' of community, a 'sense' of duty - these things are not fundamental, they are instilled.

With regard to the "product of their own labor," you may not realize this, but the middle class have not seen much of a wage increase over the past three decades. Class warfare occurs when there is an erosion of the middle class; when there is a chasm of wealth distribution made so wide that much of the population is unable to engage in what should be normative acts, such as: having children (family), home, stable work - all hinge on a livable wage.

I realize that some of these items I have listen will surely be responded to with self-deterministic dogma, that we can 'choose' our destiny, and that "that is the great thing about America." The System is structured in such a way that money flows to the top, and stays at the top. Politicians are merely there to collect their piece of that pie, and debate who, when, where, and why they should throw any person outside of the wealthy a morsel of economic prosperity.

This is just a bit of the systemic issues that America has. Personally, I am realistic about so-called "potential": America is declining economically, and most significantly, socially. The latter is related to the individual's ability to reason, and build consensus. Eventually, the sh*t is going to hit the fan with both sides, and it's unfortunate that such a thing has to come to a head, but it will. And just like the Civil War, the old south (Conservatives, Republicans) are going to lose, big time.

 

[Redbaron007]

Romney would not undermine the National Healthcare Law. Paul would undermine our presence in other States, and the nation building that the Government spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year attempting to do.

The last sentence in your post is interesting. Are you stating that there are zero Republicans, and Conservatives on welfare, or in unions? And if there are, why wouldn't they vote for President Obama?

I agree with you on Romney; but this is where we would go different paths....I want someone to dismantle the law.

We agree on Paul, he has a horrible idea of foreign affairs. It may be he wants to be an isolationist. IDK.

The last statement statnds on what I said. It means nothing other. I have spoken with several adults who receive a lot of support from the government, welfare, food stamps etc, and they are solidly behind KO, I didn't ask for party affiliation. The union people I have spoken to, another one last night, is all for having KO stay in office; again, didn't ask for party affiliation.

I guess one could make a connection that if one is receiving assistance from the gubberment, then they will support whomever is GIVING them the assistance.

 

[Daylen]

...
This is just a bit of the systemic issues that America has. Personally, I am realistic about so-called "potential": America is declining economically, and most significantly, socially. The latter is related to the individual's ability to reason, and build consensus. Eventually, the sh*t is going to hit the fan with both sides, and it's unfortunate that such a thing has to come to a head, but it will. And just like the Civil War, the old south (Conservatives, Republicans) are going to lose, big time.

So will those who are demanding the government steal on their behalf. Those "evil" rich billionaires will move to places that like the rich. If socialism wins here and liberty (personal and economic) looses then there is nothing to keep big money here, it will go to china and other places where labor is cheap. The fed will be left distributing scraps, while of course keeping enough for themselves to live good.

You say there should be compromise, how can there be compromise when people want to take away liberty? There is no compromise with those who have a long term goal of total control. Compromise with tyrants means they WILL win in the end.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

So will those who are demanding the government steal on their behalf. Those "evil" rich billionaires will move to places that like the rich. If socialism wins here and liberty (personal and economic) looses then there is nothing to keep big money here, it will go to china and other places where labor is cheap. The fed will be left distributing scraps, while of course keeping enough for themselves to live good.

You say there should be compromise, how can there be compromise when people want to take away liberty? There is no compromise with those who have a long term goal of total control. Compromise with tyrants means they WILL win in the end.

I am sorry for responding this way, but: what the hell are you stating!

"Big money" is going to China for cheap labor. Rich billionaires are not going to leave because they are required to pay a larger percentage of taxes. I would love for you to offer an example of a billionaire who has left America, given up their citizenship, and moved to another State with lower taxes, because the other State offers lower taxes. Fear-mongering political B.S. is all that is.

Naturally, you throw Liberty into the discussion of compromise. First, you must establish what Liberty is, if it can be exclusively defined - objective. Liberty is many things to many people. I suppose all forms of compromise as well as the compromise to not compromise are an attack on Liberty. The only alternative, it seems is, no motion.

One example of a thing that is undermining our Nation is the vilification of the 'other side'. Such as, referring to the 'other side' as a "tyrant." I encourage you to hold to that position; I hope you know how to swim.

 

[Daylen]

I am sorry for responding this way, but: what the hell are you stating!

"Big money" is going to China for cheap labor. Rich billionaires are not going to leave because they are required to pay a larger percentage of taxes. I would love for you to offer an example of a billionaire who has left America, given up their citizenship, and moved to another State with lower taxes, because the other State offers lower taxes. Fear-mongering political B.S. is all that is.

Naturally, you throw Liberty into the discussion of compromise. First, you must establish what Liberty is, if it can be exclusively defined - objective. Liberty is many things to many people. I suppose all forms of compromise as well as the compromise to not compromise are an attack on Liberty. The only alternative, it seems is, no motion.

One example of a thing that is undermining our Nation is the vilification of the 'other side'. Such as, referring to the 'other side' as a "tyrant." I encourage you to hold to that position; I hope you know how to swim.

I use Liberty as the founders did, free to act as I choose as long as it doesn't infringe upon another's rights, hold property and possessions. Being free from government restraint.

Are you unaware of how many manufacturing plants are being opened in china and elsewhere by American companies? People might or might not move, but their money would, heck is moving. It's been happening for a while and will only get worse if the USA has less economic freedom. No motion is better than heading to more tyranny.

I try not to vilify people, but politicians have it coming.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I use Liberty as the founders did, free to act as I choose as long as it doesn't infringe upon another's rights, hold property and possessions. Being free from government restraint.

Are you unaware of how many manufacturing plants are being opened in china and elsewhere by American companies? People might or might not move, but their money would, heck is moving. It's been happening for a while and will only get worse if the USA has less economic freedom. No motion is better than heading to more tyranny.

I try not to vilify people, but politicians have it coming.

You may not realize this, but you have inadvertently made the argument for why absolute Liberty does not exist, as well as absolute Choice. Property is occupied, not owned - a person cannot own objects; they merely take possession of them (yes, there is a difference). Liberty, and Freedom are contingent terms.

Yes, I agree, factories are moving to China. Yes, politicians do have it coming - on both sides.

Since Liberty and Freedom seems to be a re-occurring theme, I think American society should start with deciding what those terms entail, also, what the limitations of the terms are. Instead, what would happen is individuals would descent into attacking one another, drawing lines in the sand, and conceding by default to defeat.

 

[Daylen]

You may not realize this, but you have inadvertently made the argument for why absolute Liberty does not exist, as well as absolute Choice. Property is occupied, not owned - a person cannot own objects; they merely take possession of them (yes, there is a difference). Liberty, and Freedom are contingent terms.

Yes, I agree, factories are moving to China. Yes, politicians do have it coming - on both sides.

Since Liberty and Freedom seems to be a re-occurring theme, I think American society should start with deciding what those terms entail, also, what the limitations of the terms are. Instead, what would happen is individuals would descent into attacking one another, drawing lines in the sand, and conceding by default to defeat.

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.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

You wouldn't be the first to say the USA is a police state.

On a Federal level the USA is a Military State, and on the local level the States are Police States that are incrementally changing into Military States. You can thank Republicans for our current Military Complex. The Republicans want a strong military, they got it.

We spend hundreds of billions of dollars per-annumn on the American Military Complex, 'State building', etc., when there is no unifying, legitimate threat outside of the U.S. that would legitimize such expenditures.