Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Big Oil or Facebook?

34 posts in this topic

Posted

No thanks. I can take responsibility for my own life and actions. I don't need to be held accountable for things I might do. I don't need someone else enforcing a cradle-to-grave set of regulations to protect me from myself.

I think you need to take a closer look at our history. Some people tend to have an idealized view of our history that isn't realistic. You only had responsiblity for your own life and actions if you were white and male, and a landowner. Otherwise, you were at the mercy of others.

Taxes in some form have always existed, and the government has always done things some people didn't like. The colonials didn't go to war with GB to stop taxes, they went to war to stop taxation without representation. You are represented, that doesn't mean you have to like their decisions.

In 1789, you could vote only if you were white and male. That means that about a 1/3 of the population could vote then. Now adays, the only people that can't vote are those that are not yet 18.

Up until 1865, a significant portion of our population was enslaved.

In the 1950's, blacks couldn't drink out of the same water fountain as whites in many states.

Freedom of speech rules are pretty much the same as they were back in the days of Washington and Adams, but the ability to get your views heard is much greater today than it was back those days due to the Internet. Sadly, that ability has lead to many people putting out a skewed view of our history, so I am not sure this particular freedom doesn't have some drawbacks.

Btw, you can legally own a cannon today if you want one. Of course, no one owned a cannon back in the early days of the US, except for those equipping militia groups. Well maybe a few individuals did, but my guess is that only a few eccentric individuals. Some people that owned private ocean going vessels did to defend from pirates and such but they did have to get permission from government. And the same thing is true today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think you need to take a closer look at our history. Some people tend to have an idealized view of our history that isn't realistic. You only had responsiblity for your own life and actions if you were white and male, and a landowner. Otherwise, you were at the mercy of others.

Taxes in some form have always existed, and the government has always done things some people didn't like. The colonials didn't go to war with GB to stop taxes, they went to war to stop taxation without representation. You are represented, that doesn't mean you have to like their decisions.

In 1789, you could vote only if you were white and male. That means that about a 1/3 of the population could vote then. Now adays, the only people that can't vote are those that are not yet 18.

Up until 1865, a significant portion of our population was enslaved.

In the 1950's, blacks couldn't drink out of the same water fountain as whites in many states.

Freedom of speech rules are pretty much the same as they were back in the days of Washington and Adams, but the ability to get your views heard is much greater today than it was back those days due to the Internet. Sadly, that ability has lead to many people putting out a skewed view of our history, so I am not sure this particular freedom doesn't have some drawbacks.

Btw, you can legally own a cannon today if you want one. Of course, no one owned a cannon back in the early days of the US, except for those equipping militia groups. Well maybe a few individuals did, but my guess is that only a few eccentric individuals. Some people that owned private ocean going vessels did to defend from pirates and such but they did have to get permission from government. And the same thing is true today.

I understand what you say, and it is true. However, it does not take away from the purpose of the constructs laid out by the Constitution being a foundation.

If the states would have followed the Constitution, slavery would have been a virtual non-issue as it outlined a clause of article 1. It was later that Amendment 14 was put in to formally execute the intent of said clause. It was a major contention when the Constitution was drafted, and it was supported wrongly by jurisprudence in the highest court before the amendment. Even after the 14th amendment was ratified, the execution of said laws were still ignored/corrupted by said governmental entities.

Technically, one could not vote unless they owned land. The reason for that is because only landowners paid taxes. If you had no skin in the game, then you had no say in how things were conducted. Compared to today, it is a race of who can vote themselves the most stuff while politicians are happy to charge an administrative fee.

That brings me to your next point. Taxation without representation is exactly what we have today. We have a group of people that are paying taxes being represented by a close majority of persons that effectively do not pay taxes. Moreover, so-called representation has done nothing for many of us to address many serious concerns about how said taxes are spent.

The Constitution was laid out as a form of government called a Republic, not a Democracy. The difference is that a Republic lays out rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of the masses. We are clearly no longer that at all. Effectively, more and more, regular people have less rights to their property than ever before. I never claimed a utopia existed.

I simply pointed out the failings of man in executing the intent of what was originally laid out. Of course it wasn't perfect. The founding fathers knew it wasn't perfect. Hence, they put in an amendment process. Their wisdom remains though with respect to how government as a body of politics works. Those arguments were laid out pretty elegantly in the federalist papers. It is even more elegantly laid out in Bastiat's The Law and Hayek's Road to Serfdom. I say that because it is happening here just as it has happened everywhere else throughout history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Telling how a good chunk of people idolize a time when black people were (poorly maintained) property and women and poor people had no vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Telling how a good chunk of people idolize a time when black people were (poorly maintained) property and women and poor people had no vote.

Care to debate any particular point I put forth or should I consider your snark cannon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Care to debate any point I made?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Care to debate any point I made?

When you make one, I'd be happy to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Oh you can debate your nuances all day, but let's be honest about what this is: a frantic scratch and clawl by a handful of fearful people, scared to death of the inevitable change that will make America more of an even playing field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Oh you can debate your nuances all day, but let's be honest about what this is: a frantic scratch and clawl by a handful of fearful people, scared to death of the inevitable change that will make America more of an even playing field.

Again, feel free to take on any point that I've made. If by "even playing field" you mean preferential treatment, then that would absolutely be the case these days. It's all about who can vote themselves the most of each other's stuff now. Only, now that we're running out of each other's stuff, we're now stealing from our kids.

So, if Harrison Bergeron is what you want... congrats. We are well on our way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Can we just delete all the posts after Deac and close the thread? He pretty much said all that needs to be said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Unwillingness to engage a point is the surest sign of no intellectual standing/integrity.

Davidson Deac had valid points to be addressed. He was reasonable and courteous. Delhommey and Tensor have opted for the opposite.

Pat yourselves on the back for that if you aren't in the same room to jerk each other off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

When you just make stuff up like saying we're being taxed without representation, don't expect a lot of measured response. It's like arguing with a 5 year old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

When you just make stuff up like saying we're being taxed without representation, don't expect a lot of measured response. It's like arguing with a 5 year old.

Do you feel that Washington is representing your views well?

How about 8 years ago?

I certainly don't now, and I certainly didn't then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites