The Left's Psychological Assault on Independence

[DrakeZ07]

Why would any sane person, when given the awful choice between two governments to encroach on his liberties, choose the government which is further removed from his vote?

Why would any sane person make the choice of any government which encroaches on their rights in any way, shape, or form? State Government, and Federal Government, both encoraches on each persons rights. Wouldn't the logical step be a new form of government that is more stable, and equal/fair, yet doesn't trample on any one person's rights?

In short, why choose one evil, or the other, when there ARE better options out there, both historic, and yet to be discovered.

0.02$

I like green.

 

[ManInBlack]

Why would any sane person make the choice of any government which encroaches on their rights in any way, shape, or form? State Government, and Federal Government, both encoraches on each persons rights. Wouldn't the logical step be a new form of government that is more stable, and equal/fair, yet doesn't trample on any one person's rights?

In short, why choose one evil, or the other, when there ARE better options out there, both historic, and yet to be discovered.

0.02$

I like green.

I agree with you in principle, although I was directly responding to Beretta's assertion that she would prefer federal encroachment. My point is that the more local a government is, generally the more responsive to a given individual's or small community's wishes it becomes. For instance, if we had a true national, popular election for president, my vote would be 1 out 315+ million (let's just assume that all citizens are eligible to vote, for the sake of ease). In a Senate election, my vote (in Idaho) is 1 out of almost 800,000. In a House of Representatives election, it is 1 out of slightly more than 500,000.

In a state senate race, my vote is one out of 45,200 or so, and in the state house, it is one out of 22,000.

See what I mean? The more local the government, the more power each voter has, so theoretically, the more responsive the government will be to the local population's values.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I agree with you in principle, although I was directly responding to Beretta's assertion that she would prefer federal encroachment. My point is that the more local a government is, generally the more responsive to a given individual's or small community's wishes it becomes. For instance, if we had a true national, popular election for president, my vote would be 1 out 315+ million (let's just assume that all citizens are eligible to vote, for the sake of ease). In a Senate election, my vote (in Idaho) is 1 out of almost 800,000. In a House of Representatives election, it is 1 out of slightly more than 500,000.

In a state senate race, my vote is one out of 45,200 or so, and in the state house, it is one out of 22,000.

See what I mean? The more local the government, the more power each voter has, so theoretically, the more responsive the government will be to the local population's values.

Welcome to Republican Government. The reason that we don't have a popular vote for the office of President is because we are not a Democracy in that sense.

I stated that given there are the two options of Federal or State encroachment, I would opt for Federal.

I could give you a list of reasons why I would opt for the Federal Government over the State but I will leave you with one: Federal Law (Up until it is Found not-Constitutional) trumps State Law--there is a uniformity with the Federal Government regarding Laws that the States are unable to assure.

Also, there is nothing to fear of the Federal Government, you, me, and everyone else elects those individuals to office (President, Senators, Congress-people).

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Not sure about your state, well, I don't know what state you are in. But the state I currently reside in does very little encroaching on my 2A right. The encroaching they do do is tolerable, but still a far cry from constitutional carry.

The state and the feds are a package deal. ya can't have one,the state, without the other, the feds. though federal intrusions and encroaching could be greatly diminished and most folks would not even notice.

Which kind of begs the question. If most folks have little direct interaction with the federal government other than via confiscatory federal taxes, why have a federal government involved in any state beyond what the Founding Fathers envisioned?

You have pointed out precisely why I would opt for the Federal Government over the State, one word (Three!): Uniformity in Law.

 

[OC for ME]

States are sovereign and the federal government speaks for the states in matters relating to the several states. Where the several states can not agree upon issues between the several states the federal government may have the authority under the federal constitution to intervene. The federal government has far exceeded its enumerated powers under the federal constitution.

Article 1, Sections 8 thru 10

The federal government was intended to have little interaction with any one state or the several states. The federal constitution guarantees that the several states can not infringe upon our fundamental and enumerated rights. Other than that, the federal government is to be remote and non-interfering in the matters of the several states.

States Without a Specific RKBA Constitutional Provision

From a practical standpoint, the federal government is the last place you would want to go to to address why your town does fix pot holes on your street. Because the town, via the county/state, would not have the authority, or at a minimum the accountability to you. If the town/county/state is off the hook because the federal government, via your uniformity of law premise, can simply tell you to go and talk to the feds. This is what low level bureaucrats do, pass it off up the chain.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

States are sovereign and the federal government speaks for the states in matters relating to the several states. Where the several states can not agree upon issues between the several states the federal government may have the authority under the federal constitution to intervene. The federal government has far exceeded its enumerated powers under the federal constitution.

Article 1, Sections 8 thru 10

The federal government was intended to have little interaction with any one state or the several states. The federal constitution guarantees that the several states can not infringe upon our fundamental and enumerated rights. Other than that, the federal government is to be remote and non-interfering in the matters of the several states.

States Without a Specific RKBA Constitutional Provision

From a practical standpoint, the federal government is the last place you would want to go to to address why your town does fix pot holes on your street. Because the town, via the county/state, would not have the authority, or at a minimum the accountability to you. (1)If the town/county/state is off the hook because the federal government, via your uniformity of law premise, can simply tell you to go and talk to the feds. This is what low level bureaucrats do, pass it off up the chain.

Thank you for linking us up to a Federal Document to prove State Rights over the Federal Government.

The 'intent' of the Constitution is debatable. What isn't debatable is that we are still using the U.S. Constitution.

The State has no accountability to me either. A name: John T. Williams. **Bad example, I understand the State is paying his family millions of dollars for his murder.

(1) I am not stating that Uniformity is the case, I am stating that I would prefer Uniformity over individual State Mandates. Bureacracies are a complex web, unfortunately, they seem to be inherent in State and Federal Institutions; whether beuracracies are necessary, well... BTW, my town doesn't fix too many potholes, and we pay taxes for things like that, which makes me wonder if the Federal Government would do a better job, hell, they did build Interstate Highways, didn't do too bad of a job, IMO.

 

[OC for ME]

Just because you disagree with the limits on federal power that is contained within the federal constitution does not mean that there is a debate on the Founding Fathers intent regarding the federal constitution.

The intent of the federal constitution is readily available, and clearly articulated, if you care to read what the Founding Fathers wrote down about the federal constitution before, during, and after its formation and ratification.

While I agree with your 'the state is not accountable to me' contention from a philosophical perspective, your proximity to your elected state officials makes the task of holding your state accountable to you far more easily attainable. ManInBlack makes the point clearly and correctly, proximity and the limited number of 'votes' forces your state reps to be more engaging, more responsive, if they desire to keep their job.

Just a few votes, less than 10, can keep an incumbent state rep employed, or packing up his stuff in a cardboard box. It happens. Can you, if you get involved, influence 10 citizens with respect to who they will vote for? I can, at least I'd like to think that I could influence far more than 10 citizens. It has happened before.

It is very easy to knock on your state reps office door than it is to travel to your congress persons office door. You likely will not even get into our nation's Capital building without a strip search. And as soon as 'they' do a little bit of investigating regarding you, they will determine that you are a gun nut, despite of your statist views, and you will likely be denied entry/access to your federal rep. There is always a 'town-hall' you could attend though.

Where as your state's capital building, and its inhabitants will be far less insulated from you. Here in Missouri, I can walk into the state capital building, right to my reps office, open the door and start getting 'engaged' in the issues that interest me. US Capital, not likely to happen.

I would not hold up the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 as a shinning beacon of a modern road system. Because, the system is in need of a great deal of repair (just to maintain it in its current and outdated design state), redesign and updating. I-70 between St. Louis and Kansas City Missouri is a prime example of a outdated and decaying interstate highway.

Though, it is by and far more modern and much preferable to any other system in any other country. Our interstate highway system design is being used in China. And likely for the same reasons we have a interstate highway system here.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Welcome to Republican Government. The reason that we don't have a popular vote for the office of President is because we are not a Democracy in that sense.

I stated that given there are the two options of Federal or State encroachment, I would opt for Federal.

I could give you a list of reasons why I would opt for the Federal Government over the State but I will leave you with one: Federal Law (Up until it is Found not-Constitutional) trumps State Law--there is a uniformity with the Federal Government regarding Laws that the States are unable to assure.

Also, there is nothing to fear of the Federal Government, you, me, and everyone else elects those individuals to office (President, Senators, Congress-people).

Don't be so sure of that. There is volumes upon volumes of federal law, much of it contradicts itself not even lawyers can figure it all out. But hey they made sure it makes just about everything illegal.

Reading 'Death of common sense', also good to read is 'Three felonies a day'.

 

[GhostOfJefferson]

'Liberalism' is a genetic trait. What one does with the genes one has is a function of their environment. Unfortunately, loony-lib-sock-puppets waste their genetic talent on a 'government centric' philosophy that has proven to fail time and again.

Liberals are liberals first and foremost.....how else can one explain Catholics voting for pro-abortion democrats. Clearly, genetics plays a role in their decision making process.....it certainly is not logic.

Well, no, not really. It's a choice individuals make. Even choosing not to make a choice is making a choice, in the long run.

Claiming it's genetic is overriding free will, and if there is no free will then all of us here might as well turn in our weapons and submit to whatever tyranny is in store for us.

There is and has been for decades a concerted effort to eliminate the notion of free will from public discourse and awareness. From the cult of victimization, to the war on religion (the Abrahamic religions support free will), to the geneticists (I've heard the claim you made, long ago, from others), we're being conditioned to accept our fate, get into line and not complain when we're led into the slaughterhouse. Thanks, but no thanks.

If progressivism (not liberalism, liberal was defined as "libertarian" until about the 1920's when the progressives did a concept switch job) is a genetic trait, as all other political ideolgies would then be, then there would be no such thing as people changing their minds and switching their ideologies, which is something that happens every single day.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Well, no, not really. It's a choice individuals make. Even choosing not to make a choice is making a choice, in the long run.

Claiming it's genetic is overriding free will, and if there is no free will then all of us here might as well turn in our weapons and submit to whatever tyranny is in store for us.

There is and has been for decades a concerted effort to eliminate the notion of free will from public discourse and awareness. From the cult of victimization, to the war on religion (the Abrahamic religions support free will), to the geneticists (I've heard the claim you made, long ago, from others), we're being conditioned to accept our fate, get into line and not complain when we're led into the slaughterhouse. Thanks, but no thanks.

If progressivism (not liberalism, liberal was defined as "libertarian" until about the 1920's when the progressives did a concept switch job) is a genetic trait, as all other political ideolgies would then be, then there would be no such thing as people changing their minds and switching their ideologies, which is something that happens every single day.

Constingent Free WIll exists, period.

 

[GhostOfJefferson]

Constingent Free WIll exists, period.

Constingent is a new word to me. Not sure what you mean by that (not being a spelling Nazi, sorry, I honestly don't know what you meant with this particular word. As far as I can tell, it doesn't exist). Did you mean contingent?

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Constingent is a new word to me. Not sure what you mean by that (not being a spelling Nazi, sorry, I honestly don't know what you meant with this particular word. As far as I can tell, it doesn't exist). Did you mean contingent?

Sorry, typos.

 

[OC for ME]

Well, no, not really. It's a choice individuals make. Even choosing not to make a choice is making a choice, in the long run.

Claiming it's genetic is overriding free will, and if there is no free will then all of us here might as well turn in our weapons and submit to whatever tyranny is in store for us.

There is and has been for decades a concerted effort to eliminate the notion of free will from public discourse and awareness. From the cult of victimization, to the war on religion (the Abrahamic religions support free will), to the geneticists (I've heard the claim you made, long ago, from others), we're being conditioned to accept our fate, get into line and not complain when we're led into the slaughterhouse. Thanks, but no thanks.

If progressivism (not liberalism, liberal was defined as "libertarian" until about the 1920's when the progressives did a concept switch job) is a genetic trait, as all other political ideologies would then be, then there would be no such thing as people changing their minds and switching their ideologies, which is something that happens every single day.

Google 'liberal gene'.

or;

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101027161452.htm

http://news.discovery.com/human/is-there-a-liberal-gene.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-liberal-gene.html

Liberalism' is a genetic trait. What one does with the genes one has is a function of their environment. - OC for ME: 03-19-2012, 08:08 AM

Thanks for playing.

 

[GhostOfJefferson]

Google 'liberal gene'.

or;

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101027161452.htm

http://news.discovery.com/human/is-there-a-liberal-gene.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-liberal-gene.html




Thanks for playing.

Ah, well, you see, my belief in politically motivated science left a long, long time ago (thank you global warming scam and eugenics). Once science starts playing politics it's no longer science in my view, it's simply an attempt to press a philosophy using metrics and Latin. As I said, I've heard the claim before and read the "studies" and to me it appears to be yet another attempt to undermine free will. Lots of determinist scientists out there that don't particularly impress me.

 

[OC for ME]

Reading and then understanding can be, at times, for some, two different accomplishments.

This study does not state, nor do they promote, that 'free will' is some how genetically controlled. In fact the term 'free will' is never mentioned. All this study did was find a correlation between a gene, that produces a chemical and a person's 'social environment'.

In fact, this study confirms the exact opposite of your claim that;

There is and has been for decades a concerted effort to eliminate the notion of free will from public discourse and awareness.

The individuals studied exerted more free will, there by garnering a broader social environment, that could be mapped, lead to the discovery of the liberal gene.

The 'science' is not conclusive, nor is it put forth as being conclusive. They do state that more research is needed to better understand the correlation between liberals and their social environment.

A liberal is a liberal first and foremost, to the detriment of all other beliefs.

'Calendarizing' the definition of liberal may work in your social environment. But in my social environment, everyone knows exactly what and who a liberal is.

I know a liberal when I see one.

 

[GhostOfJefferson]

Correlation is not causation, ergo, one is not programmed genetically to be a liberal as was your initial claim ("liberalism is a genetic trait"). If something is a genetic trait, that means that if the specific genes are expressed as dominant for that trait, then the person has that trait, period. If my genes for hair color come out that black hair is the dominant expressed trait, then I have natural black hair (which, ah, I do), regardless of how silly I wish to color it artifically.

Free will means you can choose otherwise, with cases of otherwise being present to prove the choice has been made. Conversely, somebody may be all mushy brained or have different "socialization networks" or what have you, and turn out generally conservative. Anti-2A "pro choice" muddle brained soccer moms in plain view of all, who vote Republican and hold otherwise conservative beliefs, are not hard to find at all, for example. Hell, some of the Republican slate of Presidential hopefuls fit that description *cough cough Mitt Romney cough cough*.

Also, the very notion of "liberal" being a genetic trait begs the question of how the researchers would even begin to classify "liberal" down to specific sets of beliefs in order to quantify and qualify their assertions; this being exceedingly difficult if not impossible for most any given political persuasion, given as so many different variations of any given general political belief system exist. That notion in and of itself seems to immediately invalidate any such study(-ies) as being biased right out the gate. Science requires the removal of as much bias as possible, hence blind, double blind studies as well as peer review by disinterested scientists (who may not in fact even begin to share the same definition of "liberal"). One might as well claim a genetic trait for somebody preferring Mozart over Beethoven.

I know your answer is going to be "xyz social group interaction is what they're talking about" but that only moves the goal posts. In saying "xyz social group interaction", they still have to have a firm view of what "liberal" is in their mind in order to make the claim that those interactions would lead to a liberal political/philosophical stance, and then we're back to the extreme bias of the researchers in defining "liberal". That bird doesn't fly in science.

Reading and then understanding can be, at times, for some, two different accomplishments.

Do you often lead off conversations with ad hominem and a gruff demeanor? I ask only so I may know whether to avoid discussions with you on topics unrelated to open carry of firearms.

 

[OC for ME]

Not my claim, the study's conclusion. Just because you seem to disagree with their findings and subsequent conclusion does not make their conclusion, based on their findings, invalid.

By matching genetic information with maps of the subjects' social networks, the researchers were able to show that people with a specific variant of the DRD4 gene were more likely to be liberal as adults, but only if they had an active social life in adolescence.

It would be interesting to know how the researches 'matched' genetic information with a social network 'map'. Likely the data would be virtually undecipherable to regular folks....I don't speak Latin or Greek.

Comparing this study to global warming 'science' is a non sequitur. In one case, the 'science' has been documented to be packed full of lies, faulty math and fairytale assumptions as well as politics. In the other case, no such claim has been made about the 'science', that I know of, nor has information been put forth to indicate that the study is packed full of lies, faulty math and fairytale assumptions as well as politics.

I focus on what liberal do, not how they are made. So, do I believe that liberals are they way they are due to genetics? Well, something has to explain why my active social life as a adolescent did not lead me to become a liberal in my adult life. And, you betcha that I was constantly engaging in copious amounts of free will while a adolescent.

My mother had a great deal of trouble with me, but I think she enjoyed it. - Mark Twain

You keep interjecting free will where free will was not considered in the study. Obviously free will played a factor in the active social life of the individuals. It seems that, based on the study findings, correlation does lead to causation, possibly.

As to the comment in question, no offense intended. Simply put, individual biases can influence how information is processed despite what we/I read.

 

[GhostOfJefferson]

I'll make the point as fast and simple as I can.

Give me, show me, demonstrate to me, a scientifically valid measurement of liberalism, exactly after you show me a scientifically derived, objective all encompassing (has to be, otherwise it's exclusionary of a number of facets of what might be termed "liberal") definition of liberalism.

Without that, we cannot determine the genetic influence on anything related to it.

I'm not asking you personally, I'm demonstrating the flaw in any such study, whether they say "liberalism is caused by genetics" (false) or "liberalism is caused by behaviors that are determined by genetics" (false). Lacking a concisely defined X, one cannot arrive at the solution Y of an equation. Simple math. The X can only be "fuzzy", it cannot be objective. Without objectivity, there is no science.

This discussion reminds me of how the old Soviet bosses tended to assume a "genetic" link between so called "capitalists" and their progeny. If you were a kid in the Soviet union, and your grandpa ran a bakery pre-revolution, somehow, that was your fault and you were singled out for all kinds of nasty torment or "special" (bad) treatment, even if you never met the man and had lived your entire life in a socialist commune under their influence. They assumed that somehow, one's politics were passed down via the family chromosomes. Same thing here.

 

[OC for ME]

They reported that "it is the crucial interaction of two factors -- the genetic predisposition and the environmental condition of having many friends in adolescence -- that is associated with being more liberal." The research team also showed that this held true independent of ethnicity, culture, sex or age. - Paragraph 4. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101027161452.htm

The key term is 'showed'. Which could mean that their findings can be found again using a different set of subjects. The study does not, and was not intended to (as far as I know), define liberalism, but to determine who might be a liberal once adulthood is reached. A inference can be made that the study considered some basic precepts of, and the differences between, liberalism and conservatism to determine who might and might not be a liberal once the liberal gene was discovered.

"These findings suggest that political affiliation is not based solely on the kind of social environment people experience," said Fowler, professor of political science and medical genetics at UC San Diego. - Paragraph 5. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101027161452.htm

If it is repeatable then it typically can be considered sound science using 'approved' scientific method.

But, you are correct, I have strayed too far afield from the topic of OC. Thanks for the lively discussion. +1 to you Sir.