Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Government is not responsible for us.

HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 12:28:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Government is not responsible for our personal well-being. It is here to make sure the rules are set in place and enforced so we are able to secure (or disregard) our own well-being as we see fit. The recent belief that government is here to reduce the disparity between winners and losers is in polar opposition to the views of our founders. You many disagree, but fortunately we have a track record of the types of laws they voted on and passed while they ran the country. I don't recall any Obama-style bills up for a vote.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 12:36:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Exactly.

The strong shall survive, while the weak shall fail.
Government intervention simply confuses the natural cycle.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 12:38:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The only role of Government is to protect our Life, Liberty, and property.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 1:35:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 12:28:32 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Government is not responsible for our personal well-being. It is here to make sure the rules are set in place and enforced so we are able to secure (or disregard) our own well-being as we see fit. The recent belief that government is here to reduce the disparity between winners and losers is in polar opposition to the views of our founders. You many disagree, but fortunately we have a track record of the types of laws they voted on and passed while they ran the country. I don't recall any Obama-style bills up for a vote.

I also don't recall any votes coming up about blacks being treated as humans by the founding fathers. Let's undo that silly 13th amendment that clearly was not what the founding fathers wanted.

You have one view of what government should be, I have a different view.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 2:05:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 1:35:08 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/27/2011 12:28:32 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Government is not responsible for our personal well-being. It is here to make sure the rules are set in place and enforced so we are able to secure (or disregard) our own well-being as we see fit. The recent belief that government is here to reduce the disparity between winners and losers is in polar opposition to the views of our founders. You many disagree, but fortunately we have a track record of the types of laws they voted on and passed while they ran the country. I don't recall any Obama-style bills up for a vote.

I also don't recall any votes coming up about blacks being treated as humans by the founding fathers. Let's undo that silly 13th amendment that clearly was not what the founding fathers wanted.

You have one view of what government should be, I have a different view.

well said.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 2:16:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 12:28:32 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Government is not responsible for our personal well-being. It is here to make sure the rules are set in place and enforced so we are able to secure (or disregard) our own well-being as we see fit. The recent belief that government is here to reduce the disparity between winners and losers is in polar opposition to the views of our founders. You many disagree, but fortunately we have a track record of the types of laws they voted on and passed while they ran the country. I don't recall any Obama-style bills up for a vote.

In Common Sense, Thomas Paine describes the government in its rawest form as the defender of the people. He says that man cannot be ruled by moral virtue alone, in anarchistic society, people will ignore morality and do unjust and immoral things without punishment or deterrent. Hence we create a government for the safety and well being of the people. PEOPLE give the government power in order to help them. The government is our servant. We give it power over the military, jurisdiction over us, and the ability to pass laws FOR OUR SAFETY AND OUR BENEFIT. Should the government ever stray from this purpose, it becomes an authoritative and tyrannical state.

So, plainly, this is not a matter of opinion. This is a matter of fact. You simply have not thought well enough or read well enough to know why we have a government in the first place. Your notion of every-man-for-himself is contradictory to the establishment of the democratic state. Your notion of an apt government that works for corporations in wholly inadmissible, fundamentally flawed, and utterly outrageous.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 7:34:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
In Common Sense, Thomas Paine describes the government in its rawest form as the defender of the people. He says that man cannot be ruled by moral virtue alone, in anarchistic society, people will ignore morality and do unjust and immoral things without punishment or deterrent. Hence we create a government for the safety and well being of the people. PEOPLE give the government power in order to help them. The government is our servant. We give it power over the military, jurisdiction over us, and the ability to pass laws FOR OUR SAFETY AND OUR BENEFIT. Should the government ever stray from this purpose, it becomes an authoritative and tyrannical state.

So, plainly, this is not a matter of opinion. This is a matter of fact. You simply have not thought well enough or read well enough to know why we have a government in the first place. Your notion of every-man-for-himself is contradictory to the establishment of the democratic state. Your notion of an apt government that works for corporations in wholly inadmissible, fundamentally flawed, and utterly outrageous.

Let me get this straight-- because Thomas Paine said something with regard to the role of government, it is "not a matter of opinion?" Here's your chance to rephrase that....
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 8:02:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 7:34:28 PM, HandsOff wrote:
In Common Sense, Thomas Paine describes the government in its rawest form as the defender of the people. He says that man cannot be ruled by moral virtue alone, in anarchistic society, people will ignore morality and do unjust and immoral things without punishment or deterrent. Hence we create a government for the safety and well being of the people. PEOPLE give the government power in order to help them. The government is our servant. We give it power over the military, jurisdiction over us, and the ability to pass laws FOR OUR SAFETY AND OUR BENEFIT. Should the government ever stray from this purpose, it becomes an authoritative and tyrannical state.

So, plainly, this is not a matter of opinion. This is a matter of fact. You simply have not thought well enough or read well enough to know why we have a government in the first place. Your notion of every-man-for-himself is contradictory to the establishment of the democratic state. Your notion of an apt government that works for corporations in wholly inadmissible, fundamentally flawed, and utterly outrageous.

Let me get this straight-- because Thomas Paine said something with regard to the role of government, it is "not a matter of opinion?" Here's your chance to rephrase that....

Declaration of Independence ~ July 4, 1776

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "
http://www.archives.gov...

New Hampshire Constitution, Section 1, Article 10 ~ June 2, 1784

"Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."
http://www.nh.gov...

Bill of Rights, 9th Amendment ~ December 15, 1791

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
http://www.archives.gov...

Bill of Rights, 10th Amendment ~ December 15, 1791

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
http://www.archives.gov...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 9:31:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 12:28:32 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Government is not responsible for our personal well-being. It is here to make sure the rules are set in place and enforced so we are able to secure (or disregard) our own well-being as we see fit. The recent belief that government is here to reduce the disparity between winners and losers is in polar opposition to the views of our founders. You many disagree, but fortunately we have a track record of the types of laws they voted on and passed while they ran the country. I don't recall any Obama-style bills up for a vote.

This is a good example of the type of thinking that resulted in my re-evaluating my affiliation with the republican party. The premise, Government is not responsible for our well being is immediately contradicted by claiming the government makes the rules. Polarity is then set up with vague terms like winners and losers, presumably determined by the rules of the government. The founder were products of the Enlightenment. Finally, the non sequitor of..."Don't recall any Obama-style bills up for vote".

I am so glad though that government is not responsible. Perhaps this means the neorepubs will:
1. abolish and/or reverse the Patriot act in its entirety.
2. Repeal all Statutes passed to enforce Prohibition
3. Require all wars to be DECLARED by Congress and not the President
4. Limit the Police Powers and abolish bills of pain and penalty
5. Require any business to "big to fail" to be bound by the Constitution and no longer treat them as an individual
6. Repeal all Statutes linking employment to credit, and make it criminal for an employer to require privacy waivers for an application. (Title 15 USC)
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 9:39:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 9:31:17 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 10/27/2011 12:28:32 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Government is not responsible for our personal well-being. It is here to make sure the rules are set in place and enforced so we are able to secure (or disregard) our own well-being as we see fit. The recent belief that government is here to reduce the disparity between winners and losers is in polar opposition to the views of our founders. You many disagree, but fortunately we have a track record of the types of laws they voted on and passed while they ran the country. I don't recall any Obama-style bills up for a vote.

This is a good example of the type of thinking that resulted in my re-evaluating my affiliation with the republican party.

I am so glad though that government is not responsible. Perhaps this means the neorepubs will:
1. abolish and/or reverse the Patriot act in its entirety.
2. Repeal all Statutes passed to enforce Prohibition
3. Require all wars to be DECLARED by Congress and not the President
4. Limit the Police Powers and abolish bills of pain and penalty
5. Require any business to "big to fail" to be bound by the Constitution and no longer treat them as an individual
6. Repeal all Statutes linking employment to credit, and make it criminal for an employer to require privacy waivers for an application. (Title 15 USC)

If you are to be consistent with regard to taking responsibility for yourself you ought to re-evaluate your affiliation with the republican AND democrat parties.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 9:48:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 12:28:32 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Government is not responsible for our personal well-being. It is here to make sure the rules are set in place and enforced so we are able to secure (or disregard) our own well-being as we see fit. The recent belief that government is here to reduce the disparity between winners and losers is in polar opposition to the views of our founders. You many disagree, but fortunately we have a track record of the types of laws they voted on and passed while they ran the country. I don't recall any Obama-style bills up for a vote.

You mean like the Alien and Sedition acts?
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:07:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 9:48:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 12:28:32 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Government is not responsible for our personal well-being. It is here to make sure the rules are set in place and enforced so we are able to secure (or disregard) our own well-being as we see fit. The recent belief that government is here to reduce the disparity between winners and losers is in polar opposition to the views of our founders. You many disagree, but fortunately we have a track record of the types of laws they voted on and passed while they ran the country. I don't recall any Obama-style bills up for a vote.

You mean like the Alien and Sedition acts?

Bad laws are made at the expense of freedom regardless of who is in power. The difference is some people see them as mistakes while others see them as victories.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:10:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 10:07:39 AM, HandsOff wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:48:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 12:28:32 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Government is not responsible for our personal well-being. It is here to make sure the rules are set in place and enforced so we are able to secure (or disregard) our own well-being as we see fit. The recent belief that government is here to reduce the disparity between winners and losers is in polar opposition to the views of our founders. You many disagree, but fortunately we have a track record of the types of laws they voted on and passed while they ran the country. I don't recall any Obama-style bills up for a vote.

You mean like the Alien and Sedition acts?

Bad laws are made at the expense of freedom regardless of who is in power. The difference is some people see them as mistakes while others see them as victories.

Ok, then what's the significance in identifying something as being in opposition to the views of our founders?
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:24:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 10:10:13 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/28/2011 10:07:39 AM, HandsOff wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:48:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 12:28:32 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Government is not responsible for our personal well-being. It is here to make sure the rules are set in place and enforced so we are able to secure (or disregard) our own well-being as we see fit. The recent belief that government is here to reduce the disparity between winners and losers is in polar opposition to the views of our founders. You many disagree, but fortunately we have a track record of the types of laws they voted on and passed while they ran the country. I don't recall any Obama-style bills up for a vote.

You mean like the Alien and Sedition acts?

Bad laws are made at the expense of freedom regardless of who is in power. The difference is some people see them as mistakes while others see them as victories.

Ok, then what's the significance in identifying something as being in opposition to the views of our founders?

The founders made the majority of their decisions based on sound reason, the likes of which we have not seen from government since. Is your question implying that since the founders were hypocritical in some areas with regard to personal liberty and responsibility we ought not work to preserve the majority of their positions, which were spot on?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:37:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 10:07:39 AM, HandsOff wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:48:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 12:28:32 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Government is not responsible for our personal well-being. It is here to make sure the rules are set in place and enforced so we are able to secure (or disregard) our own well-being as we see fit. The recent belief that government is here to reduce the disparity between winners and losers is in polar opposition to the views of our founders. You many disagree, but fortunately we have a track record of the types of laws they voted on and passed while they ran the country. I don't recall any Obama-style bills up for a vote.

You mean like the Alien and Sedition acts?

Bad laws are made at the expense of freedom regardless of who is in power. The difference is some people see them as mistakes while others see them as victories.

Aristotle saw society has a two teared system.

If government oversteps it's boundaries, than they produce laws, which corrupts society.

If Citizens choose what laws they wish to follow, society also becomes corrupt.

Thus it is up to the Government to only pass good laws that benefit the whole community.

And it is up to the citizens to follow every law, good and bad.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:37:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 10:24:54 AM, HandsOff wrote:
At 10/28/2011 10:10:13 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/28/2011 10:07:39 AM, HandsOff wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:48:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 12:28:32 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Government is not responsible for our personal well-being. It is here to make sure the rules are set in place and enforced so we are able to secure (or disregard) our own well-being as we see fit. The recent belief that government is here to reduce the disparity between winners and losers is in polar opposition to the views of our founders. You many disagree, but fortunately we have a track record of the types of laws they voted on and passed while they ran the country. I don't recall any Obama-style bills up for a vote.

You mean like the Alien and Sedition acts?

Bad laws are made at the expense of freedom regardless of who is in power. The difference is some people see them as mistakes while others see them as victories.

Ok, then what's the significance in identifying something as being in opposition to the views of our founders?

The founders made the majority of their decisions based on sound reason, the likes of which we have not seen from government since. Is your question implying that since the founders were hypocritical in some areas with regard to personal liberty and responsibility we ought not work to preserve the majority of their positions, which were spot on?

No. My question implies that we're going to need a better standard than "because the founders did it." You aren't really in a good position here. Your initial statement implied that if it contradicts the laws the founders passed, it's bad. This is obviously false, as is the case with the Alien and Sedition acts. Tossing that away, you now go for a seemingly more reasonable "Well most of what they did was good." But that just opens up a can of worms about which of what they did was good and which wasn't. You'll get no universal agreement. So it's an equally useless statement.

Better, I think, to dispense with relying on the founders and instead enumerate these "sound reason[s]" and base your position on those. If a stance is a good stance, then it is good regardless of whether or not the founders agreed with it. If a stance is a bad stance, then it is bad regardless of whether or not the founders disagreed with it.

In short, the fact that the founders supported or criticized a given position is completely and entirely irrelevant with regards to todays issues. It's also misleading. The political schism that seemingly predominates modern politics existed even before the birth of our nation. Ol' George made a valient attempt to have it not dominate our government, but once he stepped down everyone went to their own sides of the room. Hell. Just look at the Federalist Papers. You had people on both sides of the fence, even back then, with fundamental disagreements among about the direction our nation should take. They were just as divided back then as we are now.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:41:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago

If you are to be consistent with regard to taking responsibility for yourself you ought to re-evaluate your affiliation with the republican AND democrat parties.

If i were affiliated with the Democrat party I would, but hey, don't let facts get in the way.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:47:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 10:24:54 AM, HandsOff wrote:
At 10/28/2011 10:10:13 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/28/2011 10:07:39 AM, HandsOff wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:48:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 12:28:32 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Government is not responsible for our personal well-being. It is here to make sure the rules are set in place and enforced so we are able to secure (or disregard) our own well-being as we see fit. The recent belief that government is here to reduce the disparity between winners and losers is in polar opposition to the views of our founders. You many disagree, but fortunately we have a track record of the types of laws they voted on and passed while they ran the country. I don't recall any Obama-style bills up for a vote.

You mean like the Alien and Sedition acts?

Bad laws are made at the expense of freedom regardless of who is in power. The difference is some people see them as mistakes while others see them as victories.

Ok, then what's the significance in identifying something as being in opposition to the views of our founders?

The founders made the majority of their decisions based on sound reason, the likes of which we have not seen from government since. Is your question implying that since the founders were hypocritical in some areas with regard to personal liberty and responsibility we ought not work to preserve the majority of their positions, which were spot on?

I would disagree that a majority of their positions were "spot on" and the other aspects where not simply "wrong" they were horibly wrong. They did not see women, nor africans as people (well, if they personally saw it, they saw no reason to pass laws to ensure others saw it). They viewed that we should concur all of the America's, but remain isolated from Europe. Of course, back in their time, a trip from Europe to the Americas took months, so there was a high degree of natural isolation. But their policy was isolation from Europ, but imperialism in the Americas. Such a policy would be crazy talk now-a-days and be compared to Hitler (and his claimed goals of only wanting to reunite the German people with their German land) because that natural isolation no longer exists.

We also come upon no reasoning that their view of the role of government is the one that we should be accepting.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:49:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 10:47:07 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/28/2011 10:24:54 AM, HandsOff wrote:
At 10/28/2011 10:10:13 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/28/2011 10:07:39 AM, HandsOff wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:48:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/27/2011 12:28:32 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Government is not responsible for our personal well-being. It is here to make sure the rules are set in place and enforced so we are able to secure (or disregard) our own well-being as we see fit. The recent belief that government is here to reduce the disparity between winners and losers is in polar opposition to the views of our founders. You many disagree, but fortunately we have a track record of the types of laws they voted on and passed while they ran the country. I don't recall any Obama-style bills up for a vote.

You mean like the Alien and Sedition acts?

Bad laws are made at the expense of freedom regardless of who is in power. The difference is some people see them as mistakes while others see them as victories.

Ok, then what's the significance in identifying something as being in opposition to the views of our founders?

The founders made the majority of their decisions based on sound reason, the likes of which we have not seen from government since. Is your question implying that since the founders were hypocritical in some areas with regard to personal liberty and responsibility we ought not work to preserve the majority of their positions, which were spot on?

I would disagree that a majority of their positions were "spot on" and the other aspects where not simply "wrong" they were horibly wrong. They did not see women, nor africans as people (well, if they personally saw it, they saw no reason to pass laws to ensure others saw it). They viewed that we should concur all of the America's, but remain isolated from Europe. Of course, back in their time, a trip from Europe to the Americas took months, so there was a high degree of natural isolation. But their policy was isolation from Europ, but imperialism in the Americas. Such a policy would be crazy talk now-a-days and be compared to Hitler (and his claimed goals of only wanting to reunite the German people with their German land) because that natural isolation no longer exists.

We also come upon no reasoning that their view of the role of government is the one that we should be accepting.

Christ on a stick, can you imagine if a politician today seriously put forth a modernized version of Manifest Destiny where we expand North and South an claim the entire continent?
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:53:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I always though the role of the government was determined by the people it governed, through a system of elected representatives.

I must be thinking of another country, like North Korea.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 11:58:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Your initial statement implied that if it contradicts the laws the founders passed, it's bad. This is obviously false, as is the case with the Alien and Sedition acts.

You are correct. It was my error to believe most people on this board shared my assumption that the founders acted upon sound reason when arriving at their positions with regard to limited government and self-sufficiency. I figured we all knew where they were correct and where they screwed up. Can you tell me why so many people point to slavery, women's rights, alien sedition, etc. as a sound reason to disregard the founders' unanimous support for severely limited government?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:01:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 11:58:15 AM, HandsOff wrote:
Your initial statement implied that if it contradicts the laws the founders passed, it's bad. This is obviously false, as is the case with the Alien and Sedition acts.


You are correct. It was my error to believe most people on this board shared my assumption that the founders acted upon sound reason when arriving at their positions with regard to limited government and self-sufficiency. I figured we all knew where they were correct and where they screwed up. Can you tell me why so many people point to slavery, women's rights, alien sedition, etc. as a sound reason to disregard the founders' unanimous support for severely limited government?

Because we don't support highly limited government to begin with. Pointing to the founding fathers is nothing more than appeal to authority.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:05:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 10:53:16 AM, Kleptin wrote:
I always though the role of the government was determined by the people it governed, through a system of elected representatives.

I must be thinking of another country, like North Korea.

No no, you're thinking of Chad or Sudan.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:07:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 11:58:15 AM, HandsOff wrote:
Your initial statement implied that if it contradicts the laws the founders passed, it's bad. This is obviously false, as is the case with the Alien and Sedition acts.


You are correct. It was my error to believe most people on this board shared my assumption that the founders acted upon sound reason when arriving at their positions with regard to limited government and self-sufficiency. I figured we all knew where they were correct and where they screwed up. Can you tell me why so many people point to slavery, women's rights, alien sedition, etc. as a sound reason to disregard the founders' unanimous support for severely limited government?

Because this unanimous support you keep referring to didn't exist. They disagreed on a great deal of topics which means, necessarily, that at least one side of those disagreements was based on unsound principles. Several founding fathers disagreed with the constitution and tried to expand the powers of the federal government almost immediately.
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:08:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Because we don't support highly limited government to begin with. Pointing to the founding fathers is nothing more than appeal to authority.

What type of government do you support? Is your position based on your own particular whims or some set of basic principles?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:23:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 12:08:11 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Because we don't support highly limited government to begin with. Pointing to the founding fathers is nothing more than appeal to authority.


What type of government do you support? Is your position based on your own particular whims or some set of basic principles?

Totalitarian. All sets of basic principles are based on one's subjective (usually subconscious) choice. "Whims" is a bad word, since it means an unexplanable changing mind. Many people's minds don't change, though they often cannot explain it. However, even if they cannot consciously explain it, does not mean it is without logic. That simply means that they have not yet figured out the logical conection from their subconscious decision.

As such, the basic principles that mine are based on is that the government is a tool of the people (at least, should be) to be used to protect them. It is derived from the old adage "there's safety in numbers" to "there's power in numbers." It is a focus of that power into a single entity, for the purpose of protecting those people. I believe that the protection of safety and wellbeing ranks higher than the protection of rights, though both ought be considered (one just more heavily than the other).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"