right wing gun nut jobs try to kill NYC mayor

I think you may have missed my point. Would you not advocate for the complete elimination of rape or murder, even though they have existed in all human societies? Government is in my opinion an immoral and evil enterprise, much like rape or murder. Perhaps it has and will always exist in some form or another in every human society. In my opinion, this is not a sufficient reason not to advocate for its maximum reduction and perhaps one day, its complete removal.

It doesn't require everyone to be a batman, or to take action solely on their own. Itd only require that these services be provided by voluntarily exchange rather than coercion. Services like defense and arbitration are valuable and do not require a government to force people to pay for them.

This quote sums up my response to this:
The State vs the Highwayman

 

Not much different from a thief considering the fact that justification has occurred by reinterpretation of our Constitution by the appointment of activist Supreme Court Justices and NOT by a contract each citizen has been given an opportunity to accept. Hence, the reason Benjamin Franklin when asked "What sort of government have you given us? responded with "A Republic Madam, If you can keep it."

Freedom as well as Rights are NOT provided by government but instead are what each individual one of us must exercise if we are to retain them. Societies are creations of people, and the U.S.A. is made up of a great many societies, NOT a single society, and that is something that should be recognized as one of the greatest sources of our Freedom. We can move about and settle among others who we more in common with should we feel the need. Article IV, section 4, of the Constitution guarantees every State of the Union a Republican Form of Government, not to be confused with the Republican party. I only wish more persons would look more critically at the events of 1913, the Federal Reserve act, the 16th and 17th amendments and the consequences produced resulting in the expansion of powers allowed to be exercised by the Federal government with little or no need of consent by the people. We had been warned at the time the Constitution was written of some of the negative consequences that might occur as a result of misinterpretation of our Constitution in the future, refuted by the claim that the checks and balances provided by the 3 'equal' branches of government would be adequate protection.

The Constitution was intended to limit the power of the Federal government over the States and the people, but through activist reinterpretation has allowed the Federal government to expand its powers, greatly diminishing the powers of the States, and even more so the people. Today, it would appear that a large number of people see the Federal government as a centralized provider, much more so than a protector of our freedom of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. It seems that the word Pursuit has been reinterpreted to mean Provision.

 

I found the following video clip to be quite accurate in explaining government from the point of view of the Left/Right political spectrum. Check it out and let me know what you think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

 

Wrong

But governments we now view as ‘civilised’ have created laws against rape, murder, or child molestation? How would the removal of such laws making those things crimes and all government mechanisms to enforce them help to reduce such crimes?

And remember that before modern democratic government such things were often allowed, for example in the US there was a time when slaves, human property, could be treated in any way the owner wished, allowing rape, killing, and child molestation.

Thing is that where you have a very unequal society, those with power and influence dictate the rules. Might becomes right, the arbitrary power of such might was common in many ‘civilised’ societies (and in some places still lingers).

It seems to me that you would bring back such a system by vastly increasing the power and influence of a few to the detriment of the many.
This is a charge I have put to you before, you have been unable to refute it in the past can you now?

 

Indie

You can shout ‘FREEDOM’ over and over it still doesn’t disguise the fact that you seem unable to defend your ideas from criticism in any rational or reasonable way.

I mean what you utter is rubbish – to repeat - where you have a very unequal society, those with power and influence dictate the rules.

It seems to me that you wish to vastly increasing the power and influence of a few to the detriment of all others.

This is a charge I have put to you before you have been unable to refute it in the past can you now?

 

Indie

Again you misdirect with more calls of ‘FREEDOM’.

I mean you go on about power being taken away from ‘the people’ but you have suggested that wealth be given greater voting power so that it could block the will of the rest of ‘the people’. And you have argued against democracy and seem to wish to limit it, taking away the direct election of Senators by popular vote for example (17th amendment), and you have argued for the cutting of taxes (increasing the power of wealth) and the limiting of welfare (opening up people to exploitation).

Actually you seem more of an enemy to ‘the people’ and their ‘power’. And that is where your ‘many societies’ argument seems to come into context. I mean I’ve asked you to explain it before and you have seemed rather vague but it seems to me that part of it at least is about splitting ‘society’ into wealth based ‘societies’, there is a society of the very wealthy, a society of the wealthy, of the not so wealthy and the rest.

And the individuals in these ‘societies’ have no obligations to anyone else.
But as pointed out to you many times those with power are much more able to exercise ‘freedom’ than those without power.

The medieval nobleman had greater freedom than a peasant, the slave owner had greater power than the slave, etc. And without government checks on such power (or it removal) then that is what happens power takes control.

It seems to me is what is behind many of those calls for ‘limited government’ and the reason why ‘FREEDOM’ is repeated by them so often is that it’s a misdirection - because actually they want to take away ‘the peoples’ freedom while vastly increasing the power of wealth.

 

But a republic doesn’t have to be democratic, you can be a republic and be an oligarchy you can be a republic and a dictatorship (in the time of Benjamin very few people had the vote in the US and even fewer could run for office).

And a republic doesn’t have to guarantee people’s freedoms or rights, for example many of the founding father were slave owners.

So it’s the type of republic that matters, and it seems to me that many here would like a plutocratic republic rather than a democratic republic.

 

Bal, Do you ever tire of promoting the never ending emotional based socialist rant?

 

Indie

LOL still unable to defend your ideas I notice.

 

So did they find out who sent Bloomberg the poison or what? Or am I in a different thread?

 

If those who are governed accept the form of government by which they are governed without complaint, is it a bad form of government? The Left to Right assignment is relative to the degree of freedom allowable to be exercised; note that the extreme Right being anarchy freely allows all forms of violence, while the extreme Left applies the greatest restrictions on individual freedom, confining it to only what the ruling individual(s) allow.
Considering the great length and efforts which have been/are being exerted to demonize Rightist politics, I would think that turn about is fair for a change.

How would you depict monarchies? For that matter do any exist today having absolute power as some appear to have had at one time?

What factors would you claim to have been most significant in contributing to its fall?

Only that the U.S. Constitution while not perfect in its original creation, attempted to allow the people to and the States to control the power they would allow the Federal government to wield over them, by limiting its powers to that which is enumerated in the Constitution, with additions and/or changes to occur through the amendment process, and NOT by activist reinterpretation.

 

It would appear that "right wing gun nut jobs" is the preferred demonizing answer by the post creator.

 

I don't see how anyone can say the Roman Empire fell in 27 BCE... that figure is off by centuries. Off topic I know, sorry about that.

 

Activism takes place throughout politics, but those who are in positions of power, elected, appointed, or employed by government are the only ones who can apply activism upon the governed.

Mechanisms only work when they are properly put to use; they can be misused or simply ignored.