Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

New York Times: US Constitution Is Evil Trash

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 11:15:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
'Let's Give Up On the Constitution'
http://www.nytimes.com...;

"As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions."

It goes on to say that government shouldn't be obliged to let people have their freedom. This is just sick.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 11:19:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 11:15:33 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
'Let's Give Up On the Constitution'
http://www.nytimes.com...;

"As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions."

It goes on to say that government shouldn't be obliged to let people have their freedom. This is just sick.
Shameful, f__kin shameful. This is why I seldom read that rag.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 11:44:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's not the New York Times, it's an op-ed. There's nothing more annoying than people who idiotically equivocate the two.

Second, where does it "government shouldn't be obliged to let people have their freedom?"
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 11:47:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 11:44:04 AM, LeafRod wrote:
It's not the New York Times, it's an op-ed. There's nothing more annoying than people who idiotically equivocate the two.

Second, where does it "government shouldn't be obliged to let people have their freedom?"

Both are still trash.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 11:48:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 11:44:04 AM, LeafRod wrote:
It's not the New York Times, it's an op-ed. There's nothing more annoying than people who idiotically equivocate the two.

Second, where does it "government shouldn't be obliged to let people have their freedom?"
The NY Slimes is RIDDLED with ARTICLES that express that very same opinion. Sometimes subtle, other times blatent.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 11:52:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Imagine that after careful study a government official " say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress " reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?"

Good point...
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 11:53:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 11:52:02 AM, Kinesis wrote:
"Imagine that after careful study a government official " say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress " reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?"

Good point...
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 12:09:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 11:44:04 AM, LeafRod wrote:
It's not the New York Times, it's an op-ed. There's nothing more annoying than people who idiotically equivocate the two.

NYT chose to publish it.

Second, where does it say "government shouldn't be obliged to let people have their freedom?"

"This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 12:24:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 11:52:02 AM, Kinesis wrote:
"Imagine that after careful study a government official " say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress " reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?"

Good point...
Not really; strawman.

Imagine laws that don't really mean anything other than what the interpreter wants them to mean.
Better point.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 12:29:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 11:52:02 AM, Kinesis wrote:
"Imagine that after careful study a government official " say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress " reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?"

1. They didn't need to know our current situation. Tyranny is never good no matter what generation. 3,000 years of history has proven that tyranny is bad. The Constitution will still be relevant even if were in flying cars with hovering buildings and space suits.

2. They violated the law of a tyrannical government. MLK violated laws too.

3. They knew slavery was bad and spoke against it.

4. These guys came from the Enlightenment Era. The Enlightenment Era thinkers are leaps and bounds over 99% of todays modern society.

Good point...

No. Terrible point.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 12:49:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think the Constitution is evil trash, but not because I want a massive state without restrictions. I want no government. The Constitution basically gave a small group of men the right to rob, coerce, and imprison people. And, no, political rituals don't alter human rights by imbuing a certain subset of people the right to steal, control, and incarcerate.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 12:51:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 12:49:39 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I think the Constitution is evil trash, but not because I want a massive state without restrictions. I want no government. The Constitution basically gave a small group of men the right to rob, coerce, and imprison people. And, no, political rituals don't alter human rights by imbuing a certain subset of people the right to steal, control, and incarcerate.




We cannot have a civil society without government; it's just about limited government.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 1:14:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 12:29:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
1. They didn't need to know our current situation. Tyranny is never good no matter what generation. 3,000 years of history has proven that tyranny is bad. The Constitution will still be relevant even if were in flying cars with hovering buildings and space suits.

The point is, the constitution hardly represents the greatest political document possible (obviously that's why amendments). Flying cars might not have much relevance, but unmanned drones? Surveillance cameras? Internet freedoms? Nuclear weapons? And who knows what technological capabilities in the future. Is the constitution really equipped to deal with that stuff?

2. They violated the law of a tyrannical government. MLK violated laws too.

Yeah that's a silly point I agree with you.

3. They knew slavery was bad and spoke against it.

Not all of them, and not very strongly. The constitution at the time certainly didn't outlaw slavery. In fact, from the article: "Eventually, though, he embraced the freeing of slaves as a central war aim, though nearly everyone conceded that the federal government lacked the constitutional power to disrupt slavery where it already existed. Moreover, when the law finally caught up with the facts on the ground through passage of the 13th Amendment, ratification was achieved in a manner at odds with constitutional requirements."

4. These guys came from the Enlightenment Era. The Enlightenment Era thinkers are leaps and bounds over 99% of todays modern society.

lol, the enlightenment thinkers were in the top 1% of thinkers in their own society, but they don't compare to the top 1% of thinkers in modern society - if only because modern thinkers stand on the shoulders of previous thinkers.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 1:15:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Interesting article about this:

http://lionoftheblogosphere.wordpress.com...

Basically now that Democrats have the control of the government, the constitution only hinders them, so you'll see less of them supporting it nowadays.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 1:24:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 12:51:29 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 1/3/2013 12:49:39 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I think the Constitution is evil trash, but not because I want a massive state without restrictions. I want no government. The Constitution basically gave a small group of men the right to rob, coerce, and imprison people. And, no, political rituals don't alter human rights by imbuing a certain subset of people the right to steal, control, and incarcerate.

We cannot have a civil society without government; it's just about limited government.

To have a state-run society you have to have a government? No kidding! I suppose what you meant that you can't have a well-functioning or flourishing society without a government. This claim is historically, economically, and philosophically erroneous. 1. In history there have been many examples of anarchic societies functioning not only well, but better than other contemporary societies with states [http://www.ozarkia.net...]. 2. The state itself survives on extorting the wealth from society's production. In this sense, the state relies parasitically on the productive sector, which decreases the total amount of wealth in society, because instead of 100/100 workers producing and consuming 90 workers produce and 100 consume. Economically most states have destroyed the underlying basis of a sound economy by altering the money supply from central banks. 3. The basis of what you are saying is a logical contradiction. You are essentially saying (whatever your characteristics of a civil society are) that in order to have a government to protect our property, it has to steal our property by force; in order for citizens to be safe, the state has to have the right to break into your house and throw you into a cage; in order for you to be free, the government has to restrict the rights and privacy of its inhabitants.

In case its unclear, the state is an example of a means that contradicts the ends which is that of protecting the rights of innocent people. In the words of Dr. Hans Hermann Hoppe "An expropriating property protector (the state through taxation) is a contradiction in terms."

Also, limited government is a fiction. There is nothing that can restrict a government once the populace has given it an aura of legitimacy. To put this is perspective observe the fact that the United States was once a minarchic state and has now grown into the largest police state with 25% of the world's incarcerated population, has killed millions of innocent foreigners in the past 100 years, and extorts 40% of the wealth of the productive sector of the economy (serfs under feudalism payed 25%). All this from a "restricted government."
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 1:40:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 11:48:33 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 1/3/2013 11:44:04 AM, LeafRod wrote:
It's not the New York Times, it's an op-ed. There's nothing more annoying than people who idiotically equivocate the two.

Second, where does it "government shouldn't be obliged to let people have their freedom?"
The NY Slimes is RIDDLED with ARTICLES that express that very same opinion. Sometimes subtle, other times blatent.

Without refuting this statement, I always find it amusing that when someone says something along the lines of "X is an example of Y", then someone points out that X isn't an example of Y, the comeback is "Well, there are plenty of stuff that is an example of Y!" If that's true then why not actually present something that is an example of what you're trying to demonstrate! Is a little rigor or due diligence so hard to ask?! If what you say is true, then the sheer random chance should be in favor of producing something that was expressive of the NYT, meaning the OP actually beat the odds to not present something expressive of NYT.

Outside of the pure logic of the matter, in the realm of attempting to convince people this is actually harmful, even if you're ultimately correct because by failing to present an actual, relevant, example, the OP's credibility is harmed. So even if one of these other, relevant, articles are produced, people are less likely to be convinced.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 2:26:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 1:40:51 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/3/2013 11:48:33 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 1/3/2013 11:44:04 AM, LeafRod wrote:
It's not the New York Times, it's an op-ed. There's nothing more annoying than people who idiotically equivocate the two.

Second, where does it "government shouldn't be obliged to let people have their freedom?"
The NY Slimes is RIDDLED with ARTICLES that express that very same opinion. Sometimes subtle, other times blatent.

Without refuting this statement, I always find it amusing that when someone says something along the lines of "X is an example of Y", then someone points out that X isn't an example of Y, the comeback is "Well, there are plenty of stuff that is an example of Y!"
What's even more amusing is when X is an example of Y. It was an OP ed piece in the NY Times; did anyone dispute that? No.

If that's true then why not actually present something that is an example of what you're trying to demonstrate! Is a little rigor or due diligence so hard to ask?! If what you say is true, then the sheer random chance should be in favor of producing something that was expressive of the NYT, meaning the OP actually beat the odds to not present something expressive of NYT.
The NYT is a well known liberal rag.

Outside of the pure logic of the matter, in the realm of attempting to convince people this is actually harmful, even if you're ultimately correct because by failing to present an actual, relevant, example, the OP's credibility is harmed. So even if one of these other, relevant, articles are produced, people are less likely to be convinced.
Not trying to convince anyone; simply stating the obvious. If you need to be convinced that the NYT is a liberal left-leaning publication, then you probably share in their POV or are uninformed.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 2:31:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 2:26:05 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 1/3/2013 1:40:51 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/3/2013 11:48:33 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 1/3/2013 11:44:04 AM, LeafRod wrote:
It's not the New York Times, it's an op-ed. There's nothing more annoying than people who idiotically equivocate the two.

Second, where does it "government shouldn't be obliged to let people have their freedom?"
The NY Slimes is RIDDLED with ARTICLES that express that very same opinion. Sometimes subtle, other times blatent.

Without refuting this statement, I always find it amusing that when someone says something along the lines of "X is an example of Y", then someone points out that X isn't an example of Y, the comeback is "Well, there are plenty of stuff that is an example of Y!"
What's even more amusing is when X is an example of Y. It was an OP ed piece in the NY Times; did anyone dispute that? No.

No, but it seems that there might be a difference between an Op-Ed piece and an actual NYT Article.


If that's true then why not actually present something that is an example of what you're trying to demonstrate! Is a little rigor or due diligence so hard to ask?! If what you say is true, then the sheer random chance should be in favor of producing something that was expressive of the NYT, meaning the OP actually beat the odds to not present something expressive of NYT.
The NYT is a well known liberal rag.

Outside of the pure logic of the matter, in the realm of attempting to convince people this is actually harmful, even if you're ultimately correct because by failing to present an actual, relevant, example, the OP's credibility is harmed. So even if one of these other, relevant, articles are produced, people are less likely to be convinced.
Not trying to convince anyone; simply stating the obvious. If you need to be convinced that the NYT is a liberal left-leaning publication, then you probably share in their POV or are uninformed.

Ding, ding. I'm certainly uninformed in this area. I don't know which print publications are left or right wing, generally speaking. But what's the point here, if not to inform? Virtual masturbation?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 2:35:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 2:31:09 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/3/2013 2:26:05 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
What's even more amusing is when X is an example of Y. It was an OP ed piece in the NY Times; did anyone dispute that? No.
No, but it seems that there might be a difference between an Op-Ed piece and an actual NYT Article.
Again, no one has said otherwise.

If that's true then why not actually present something that is an example of what you're trying to demonstrate! Is a little rigor or due diligence so hard to ask?! If what you say is true, then the sheer random chance should be in favor of producing something that was expressive of the NYT, meaning the OP actually beat the odds to not present something expressive of NYT.
The NYT is a well known liberal rag.

Outside of the pure logic of the matter, in the realm of attempting to convince people this is actually harmful, even if you're ultimately correct because by failing to present an actual, relevant, example, the OP's credibility is harmed. So even if one of these other, relevant, articles are produced, people are less likely to be convinced.
Not trying to convince anyone; simply stating the obvious. If you need to be convinced that the NYT is a liberal left-leaning publication, then you probably share in their POV or are uninformed.
Ding, ding. I'm certainly uninformed in this area. I don't know which print publications are left or right wing, generally speaking.
Fair enough. Simply peruse the NYT and then say the NYP (Post) and compare and contrast.

But what's the point here, if not to inform?
Have you not been informed?

Virtual masturbation?
Sometimes.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 2:43:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 12:09:47 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/3/2013 11:44:04 AM, LeafRod wrote:
It's not the New York Times, it's an op-ed. There's nothing more annoying than people who idiotically equivocate the two.

NYT chose to publish it.

To the best of my knowledge that is not how newspapers work. By your logic no newspaper would ever publish op-eds that expressed different opinions, and yet, if you paid even a miniscule amount of critical attention to the newspaper instead of looking for articles to post here with incendiary titles, you would see that they do so all the time.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 2:46:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 12:29:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
1. They didn't need to know our current situation. Tyranny is never good no matter what generation. 3,000 years of history has proven that tyranny is bad. The Constitution will still be relevant even if were in flying cars with hovering buildings and space suits.

And yet the Constitution tyrannically binds people in 50 states to abide by it according to an invalid social contract to which they never consented in order to uphold the ancient document's validity.

2. They violated the law of a tyrannical government. MLK violated laws too.

The thing that makes me sort of agree with the OP (article) is that the Constitution is seemingly irrelevant. I'm not saying it SHOULD be - or rather I'm not saying the values it espouses aren't important - but it's not and hasn't for a long time been our standard of government. Not only can the Constitution be amended (which is a good thing), but it's often flat-out ignored. The passing of the NDAA along with other government policies makes it seem as if the Constitution is obsolete anyway. The income tax itself is Unconstitutional, isn't it? FEMA, child labor laws, minimum wage laws, legislating new laws via Executive orders, going to war without a declaration from Congress (which I think Obama did with Libya), etc. are all examples of things that are Unconstitutional and yet they're the status quo - the lay of the land. So maybe it's time to stop treating the Constitution as if its the holy grail of law. It's penetrable, dare I even say obsolete at this point - especially now that the 2nd amendment is being challenged. So maybe the author isn't so far off base. The commander in chief takes an oath to the Constitution, as does his cabinet, congress, and the judiciary branch. Any thing they do against the Constitution is breaking that oath and effectively treason - but it means nothing.

3. They knew slavery was bad and spoke against it.

Thomas Jefferson said lots of pretty words like "All men are created equal" but clearly didn't live by those principles, even allowing his own children to suffer in slavery. Actions speak louder than words.

4. These guys came from the Enlightenment Era. The Enlightenment Era thinkers are leaps and bounds over 99% of todays modern society.

But their ideas didn't survive :( lol

I agree with WSA. The principles of the Constitution are pretty valid but the document doesn't represent the pinnacle of the law any more, and maybe it shouldn't. Every state should (in this society) devise its own Constitution or better yet every town. Any federal laws should probably only be in regard to trade and commerce.
President of DDO
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 2:52:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 2:35:45 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 1/3/2013 2:31:09 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/3/2013 2:26:05 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
What's even more amusing is when X is an example of Y. It was an OP ed piece in the NY Times; did anyone dispute that? No.
No, but it seems that there might be a difference between an Op-Ed piece and an actual NYT Article.
Again, no one has said otherwise.

Well, if there is a difference, then the original complaint was that the OP's presentation obfuscated that.


If that's true then why not actually present something that is an example of what you're trying to demonstrate! Is a little rigor or due diligence so hard to ask?! If what you say is true, then the sheer random chance should be in favor of producing something that was expressive of the NYT, meaning the OP actually beat the odds to not present something expressive of NYT.
The NYT is a well known liberal rag.

Outside of the pure logic of the matter, in the realm of attempting to convince people this is actually harmful, even if you're ultimately correct because by failing to present an actual, relevant, example, the OP's credibility is harmed. So even if one of these other, relevant, articles are produced, people are less likely to be convinced.
Not trying to convince anyone; simply stating the obvious. If you need to be convinced that the NYT is a liberal left-leaning publication, then you probably share in their POV or are uninformed.
Ding, ding. I'm certainly uninformed in this area. I don't know which print publications are left or right wing, generally speaking.
Fair enough. Simply peruse the NYT and then say the NYP (Post) and compare and contrast.

But what's the point here, if not to inform?
Have you not been informed?

Of the political leaning of the NYT? Not in a manner that was convincing. :)


Virtual masturbation?
Sometimes.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 3:05:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 1:24:57 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 1/3/2013 12:51:29 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
We cannot have a civil society without government; it's just about limited government.
To have a state-run society you have to have a government? No kidding!
I said civil society. "(The) civil society is the arena outside of the family, the state, and the market where people associate to advance common interests

I suppose what you meant that you can't have a well-functioning or flourishing society without a government.
The civil society precedes government. One can have a civil society without government BUT only on a small scale.

In case its unclear, the state is an example of a means that contradicts the ends which is that of protecting the rights of innocent people. In the words of Dr. Hans Hermann Hoppe "An expropriating property protector (the state through taxation) is a contradiction in terms."
The government (or any entity) should NEVER initiate force. Doing so is immoral.

Also, limited government is a fiction. There is nothing that can restrict a government once the populace has given it an aura of legitimacy.
ONLY once the populace has given it the power to do so. "A Republic, Ma am, if you can keep it." -Ben Franklin.

To put this is perspective observe the fact that the United States was once a minarchic state and has now grown into the largest police state with 25% of the world's incarcerated population, has killed millions of innocent foreigners in the past 100 years, and extorts 40% of the wealth of the productive sector of the economy (serfs under feudalism payed 25%). All this from a "restricted government."
Yes, the US has strayed from its origins. We are living in a post-constitutional era; sad really.

Really there's only Oligarchy and Republic; Anarchy & Democracy are temporary conditions that lead to Oligarchy.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 5:06:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@LeafNimrod

I never said it wasnt an Op-Ed. The forum title didn't allow enough characters to say Op-Ed. (Btw, Infowars did properly call it an Op-Ed). Was I wrong when I said NYT published it? I guarantee you they will NEVER publish an Alex Jones Op-Ed.

@Danielle

The article didn't say it's obsolete because it gets ignored, they said it needs to be obsolete so the Drmocrats can move forward. The Constitution is holding back their Progressive Agenda.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 6:58:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@RagingIdiot

I don't care about your character limits; you said "New York Times: US Constitution... whatever" which, along with your post, clearly shows that you are trying to imply that this is the opinion of the newspaper. It isn't, which is why it's an op-ed. I pointed out, as another clear, obvious, literally-you-cannot-refute-this indication of this blatantly obvious phenomenon of journalism that op-eds and newspaper opinions are different, newspapers often publish op-eds with totally differing opinions; therefore, you cannot equivocate an op-ed with the opinion of the newspaper.

Your total speculation on whether or not an op-ed by one of your hero conspiracy theorists would be published by the newspaper is totally irrelevant. Reasons why: a) we've already seen that the newspaper can publish opinions from a variety of different and often opposing viewpoints, b) they're probably often more concerned with the quality of argument than the content (I'm sure there are exceptions, such as), c) even though you subscribe to all this conspiracy stuff you should at least take a step back and recognize the perception of those theories (that's why they're conspiracy theories, right?) and why a newspaper may not want to publish an op-ed by some guy who buys into all of that (which is also still irrelevant speculation on your part), and d) conspiracy theories are garbage. Of course, that last bit was just thrown on by me.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 7:23:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I for one hate the NYT. And I bet the Times wouldn't be touting a rewrite of the Constitution if the Left wasn't in power. They'd rip the Constitution down and replace it with a socially constructed socialist nanny state headed by big government and bureaucrats.

This truly is a frightening display of ignorance on their part. The system doesn't work smoothly all the time because ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO WORK ALL THE TIME. It's supposed to be gridlocked if the three branches don't agree. That's the point.

Just because liberals can't ram through legislation and big spending bills all the time doesn't mean we need to rewrite the system which is, frankly, genius in design.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2013 12:06:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 5:06:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@Danielle

The article didn't say it's obsolete because it gets ignored, they said it needs to be obsolete so the Drmocrats can move forward. The Constitution is holding back their Progressive Agenda.

If it gets ignored in all of those other ways, I don't see why it should hinder their agenda now. All it means is that politicians haven't come up with BS excuses to get around the "rules."
President of DDO
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2013 12:18:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 2:45:59 PM, LeafRod wrote:
At 1/3/2013 2:35:45 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Again, no one has said otherwise.

Actually Geo said exactly otherwise
Actually, he has not.

At 1/3/2013 2:52:01 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/3/2013 2:35:45 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 1/3/2013 2:31:09 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/3/2013 2:26:05 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
What's even more amusing is when X is an example of Y. It was an OP ed piece in the NY Times; did anyone dispute that? No.
No, but it seems that there might be a difference between an Op-Ed piece and an actual NYT Article.
Again, no one has said otherwise.
Well, if there is a difference, then the original complaint was that the OP's presentation obfuscated that.
OK, fair enough.

If that's true then why not actually present something that is an example of what you're trying to demonstrate! Is a little rigor or due diligence so hard to ask?! If what you say is true, then the sheer random chance should be in favor of producing something that was expressive of the NYT, meaning the OP actually beat the odds to not present something expressive of NYT.
The NYT is a well known liberal rag.

Outside of the pure logic of the matter, in the realm of attempting to convince people this is actually harmful, even if you're ultimately correct because by failing to present an actual, relevant, example, the OP's credibility is harmed. So even if one of these other, relevant, articles are produced, people are less likely to be convinced.
Not trying to convince anyone; simply stating the obvious. If you need to be convinced that the NYT is a liberal left-leaning publication, then you probably share in their POV or are uninformed.
Ding, ding. I'm certainly uninformed in this area. I don't know which print publications are left or right wing, generally speaking.
Fair enough. Simply peruse the NYT and then say the NYP (Post) and compare and contrast.
But what's the point here, if not to inform?
Have you not been informed?
Of the political leaning of the NYT?
Yep.

Not in a manner that was convincing. :)
Well, I did suggest for you to read the NYT for yourself in order to convince you. Did you?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2013 2:21:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
During Christmas dinner, my eldest brother, who lives in a gated community, sends his boys to elite private school, and would be considered one of the 1%. Is also a liberal democrat said to me "I don't give a poo poo about rights..." This was during a discussion over the 2nd Amendment. I commented about the statement that he made and he saw no problem with it, and really thought that we should relinquish our inherent right of self defense to the state. The superiority of my argument was lost in the emotion of his rant. I actually made my case calmly and watched him respond in irrational sound bites.