[mverta]

People don't realize how significant this election is. Everything will be different now. Hope and Change have prevailed. We'll all pay lower taxes, we'll be out of Iraq in a month, the world will love and cherish America, and there will be peace, prosperity and jobs for every American. Plus, Obama is going to walk across water for show every once in awhile, you don't want to miss it. The stock market has already risen just tons in the couple of days he's been president-elect.

Listen, if there's one thing you can count on, it's Presidents adhering to every campaign promise they make. They never backslide and qualify and end up reversing virtually everything they said to get you to vote for them. I mean, if all the feel good promises didn't mean anything, then you'd have to elect your president based on other things, like what he'd do when all the marketing soundbites and catchphrases had ceased; when all the best laid plans of men falter and fade. Then you'd be looking for a man who you knew, no matter what went down, you could count on to love and sacrifice himself for his country; whose interest wasn't being president, but being president so he could help his country. And believe me, people who truly have a lifetime of service as patriots to draw upon, and take no greater pride than in continuing that service, are really, really hard to find.

So fortunately we won't have to worry about that. And Obama can trade in his pretend Presidential Seal campaign logo for the real one! And his pretend Air Force One plane for the real one! In fact, he's done so much pretending to be President by now, how can you say he's not ready to do the real thing? Well, you can't. Not anymore, anyway.


Plus - and tell me this isn't a bonus - Joe Biden is now "one heartbeat away from the Presidency." Talk about a win-win. People sleep better at night just knowing that.


I sure wish Mr. Winston Churchill, who said the greatest argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter, were alive so he could see just how very, very wrong he was. People aren't ignorant anymore; people are smart and informed now and they make smart choices. They deserve what they get.

You know, unless they have money in real estate or the stock market, in which case, they just lost 40% of their stock value and are going to take it in the ass on Capital Gains. But Obama promised change... See? He delivers.


_Mike

[leoA4D]

Please do give the McCain and "no change" alternative equal time.

[mverta]

No Change, and Change are both just marketing phrases, spun wildly. By the same people, I notice. Repeated often, but substanceless. And in any case, there will be no equal time given. Time to move on.


_Mike

[simmsimaging]

Come on now Mike, you almost sound a little jaded there. What happened to that boundless optimism we've come to know and love?

[tom]

Then you'd be looking for a man who you knew, no matter what went down, you could count on to love and sacrifice himself for his country; whose interest wasn't being president, but being president so he could help his country. And believe me, people who truly have a lifetime of service as patriots to draw upon, and take no greater pride than in continuing that service, are really, really hard to find.

I agree 100% except I don't think it's really hard to find, it's just impossible.
(Soundtrack: Slave New World / Sepultura)

[glebe digital]

God bless Obamerica

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Z893dsv5AZU

[rivoli]

Plus - and tell me this isn't a bonus - Sarah Palin is now "one heartbeat away from the Presidency." Talk about a win-win. People sleep better at night just knowing that.

they sure do, I guess.

[JDHill]

Hey Brett,

Firstly, thanks, because you seem willing to engage in a reasoned discussion. I would hate to be thought 'narrow-minded' for the simple lack of another party willing to engage in the debate in earnest. I did not mean to make that audit the centerpeice of my point, since it is not, and since I have never agreed with the concept of random government searches. I am not interested in having you perform that audit again here either, so suffice to say that our friendly public servants (it was a state audit conducted by two 23 or 24 year old girls) in the revenue department can sometimes show a truly amazing ability to be completely ignorant of the fundamental difference between business income and business debt - they both show up as a positive in the account, after all (I am not joking here at all).

As to the underlying issue, I do not disagree at all that I am a complete idealist in these matters, but I do not personally consider that to be a negative - the realist masses may be convinced to support absolutely anything, so long as the argument provides a sufficient cost-benefit ratio. I have to disagree when you say nothing I propose is 'workable' though, because if as you say, you have considered my points, you may have gathered that I only propose one single change: the removal of unjustifiable coercion from the system.

So, that's a bit of a trick, isn't it? And since I really detest those who confuse debate by injecting intentionally vague terminology -- what exactly is 'unjustifiable'?

I believe firstly in the absolute existence of natural law - that law which is not based (and therefore derives no lawful right of force) in religion, nor in conscience. Tried many times in the past, religion-based law is an invitation to disaster, though the initial impulse for creating such a thing may generally be shown to have been nothing more than an attempt to codify natural law (look back even as far as the Code of Hammurabi). Unfortunately, basing law on conscience (this approach is the current vogue) offers no more safety to us than basing it on religion - when we decree to a man what we agree is lawful and right, our only recourse when his concience differs is the use of bare violence to enforce our view. This is problematic since at the outset we have based our law on a subjective interpretation of what we 'felt' was right, and we may not sleep well at night when we have to enforce it -- furthermore, who is to say that we may not very soon find ourselves in the position of odd-man-out? So it is also an unacceptable solution.

Okay, so where exactly are we at this point? What do we know?

- we need law
- we need a basis for this law which is universal, otherwise we do not have law; we only have force
- we have failed in the past when religion was made to be the motor of law
- we are failing (this is my assertion) at the present time by basing our law on conscience

If all has been failure, where then do we turn? But first, is this the complete list from which to determine that we have always failed? In fact, no it is not. We often hear the old slogan which says that the U.S.A is just such an inherently bright and shining light for the world -- but it has begun to ring a bit hollow, hasn't it? And that country has apparently been doing its absolute best to prove the opposite for quite some time now. If this is the case, where did the idea come from at all; was it nothing more than a nationalistic fabrication? I hold that no, it was not; the system in place in the US at one point in time truly was a beacon for the world, and it had nothing to do with the poeple of the country, but rather with the system they had put in place. The 'American Experiment' was a very real thing, and the implementation of a truly wonderful model. It was brought about by men who, while some of them being extraordinarily religious, saw the folly of basing the laws of their country on their religion. It is true that they mentioned God quite a bit in their implementation, but when we consider the thing as a whole, it is nothing short of amazing how successful they were in maintaining a logical separation as they distilled the concepts of natural law into a written code. I am not sure if many people fully grasp how fundamental the change they realized was, not as is so commonly portrayed as being primarily in repect to the rule of old King George, but as opposed to the already-existing power structures in the new 'free' world. For context here, I really encourage a consideration of the actual state of life of Americans on the ground at that time, such as the exceptionally sad and moving experience of the martyred Quaker Mary Dyer - simply breathtaking. That in mind, it is truly amazing how generic (with respect to religion) the documents they forged actually were, and this attests to just how important they felt the separation was.

So, why be so obsessed with the source of law? Because we need it, and because it may be misused, and because if it has no basis other than force, we are lost.

I hold that at the outset, the state of affairs in the US was much more functionally aligned with my admittedly idealist notions (of course, it was not perfect). The country's founding documents lay out very explicitly the very thing which I suggest - that the power of any government emanates from no other source than the rights (I hate that word) of its individuals. The supposition that such a government can bring its power to bear on these same citizens, when they have not violated any man, is ridiculous on its face. That may not be extremely helpful if the government has gradually taken as its primary goal the collection of revenue for the purpose of enhancing the so-called public good, but too often such a use has no basis in anything other than conscience, which as I suggested at the outset, is completely arbitrary and able to be bent and formed into absolutely any shape which may be desired.

Put another way - if you are willing to call the force of your government against others for the purpose of doing any positive thing (i.e. proactive vs. reactive enforcement), you have then nullified any argument you may have previously had for prohibiting it do so on the basis of religion, or indeed, any other basis at all.

So this all being the case, here is my proposal: that we have the government provide any public good we may wish it to provide, but require that it do so without extracting the necessary revenue by means of force. There is no self-justified argument for doing so, and when it does, it has crossed the line between democracy and democratic tyranny. We will want roads, bridges, etc., (charity, even!) and I am willing to cooperate with you to get them - are you willing to cooperate with me? Or, will you force me when the bridge you want is really something else which I do not consent to? Because, I will not force you -- I may ask you to contribute, but I will not force it. Basically, I will put up or shut up.

[simmsimaging]

Hey JD -

I'm going to come off curt here, especially given the time and thought you put into your post, but I don't have a ton of time (leaving on vacation today!)

Couple of points:
The bottom line is that nothing is really different. You are restating and refining your statement of the problem, but saying "do it without force" is begging the question, and I still don't see any practical suggestions for how to do things differently. It's nice to think that people will 'do the right thing' on their own, but it's just not going to happen. People are too self-centred (and that's not a criticism) and people legitimately define what is valuable or important in many different ways. Without some enforcement social programs would simply fail.

If I had to ask for clarification of terms it would be for 'natural law' rather than 'justifiable'. What does that actually mean? You refer to it as an absolute - but it's a catch-all phrase that conveys a concept, an ideal maybe, but not much content. Whatever you might count as a natural law would be subject to a great deal of debate, almost guaranteed. Looking to 'nature' for some kind of moral or ethical framework is a tricky bit of business, I would not take it for granted that there is an easy, or even just a clear, answer to be found there.

I still think that the idealism is potentially a problem for you in this matter. Idealism is a good thing, but you need to keep it as the beacon guiding you towards progressive improvement, but not blinding you to practical realities. I think that your point about democracy and democratic tyranny reflects that; you seem to think that it's only a 'democratic' decision if it's unanimous. But that is idealistic, and not accurate. It's not to say that a democracy cannot devolve into tyranny, but enforcing laws and/or policies supported by the majority doesn't really count in that manner.

Gotta run - but food for thought anyway.
b

[Bubbaloo]

Smart people suck.

One of my favorite bumper stickers!

[jvanmetre]

Then you'd be looking for a man who you knew, no matter what went down, you could count on to love and sacrifice himself for his country; whose interest wasn't being president, but being president so he could help his country. And believe me, people who truly have a lifetime of service as patriots to draw upon, and take no greater pride than in continuing that service, are really, really hard to find.

I agree 100% except I don't think it's really hard to find, it's just impossible.
(Soundtrack: Slave New World / Sepultura)

Hmm...I think the other half of our population might have a suggestion or two!

[leoA4D]

Then you'd be looking for a man who you knew, no matter what went down, you could count on to love and sacrifice himself for his country; whose interest wasn't being president, but being president so he could help his country. And believe me, people who truly have a lifetime of service as patriots to draw upon, and take no greater pride than in continuing that service, are really, really hard to find.

That leaves out 1 1/2 of the two main presidential candidates.

[JDHill]

Brett -

No worries - I had wrongly assumed an understanding on your part when I referred to 'natural law'. It is as you guess, a wide and varied topic, but the principle is well established. I will try...suppose that a man may do as he will, so long as his action does not preclude another man from doing the same - this may be considered as the basis of what what I am referring to. In other words; law which is derived purely on the logical foundations of maintaing the order which is required to perpetuate peace in the face of mutual self-determination. In the extreme case, it may be shown to be based on the same logic which exposes me as a liar when I claim that I may rightfully take your life - the statement is inherently illogical (on the basis that I disagree with myself - as we are both men, I remove the ground I stand on in making the statement, by the very act of making it) and on that basis, it is condemned, and a man's right to his own life is established in the law, independent of his own assertion, and also of what religion or conscience may or may not have told us. I'm sure I'm just doing a marvelous hatchet-job here, so you may want to hit up google instead if you're interested. I just give this here for illustration, and in the broader context, I don't propose it could be any kind of easy way out - but continuing on down the road to universal serfdom isn't too great either. All of this is not pointless -- if we do not think and reason with one another, what are we? And so I do.

As to some of your specifics:

1. '...but saying "do it without force" is begging the question, and I still don't see any practical suggestions for how to do things differently.'

It is not begging the question -- that is exactly my proposal, take it or leave it. I detest analogy, but here I will use the example of a neighborhood without paved roads. Ninety-three out of a hundred of the people living there want to pave the roads, but the other seven do not. I do not advocate for mob-rule here -- the majority need to suck it up and decide whether they really want the pavement or not -- it works no real hardship on them, other than that the price went up. Put up or shut up, and live with those seven cheapskates you happen have as neighbors or move somewhere with people who think more like you. Or else... send the sheriff to evict them. Those are your choices, it is just that many (most, I assert) of us do not think of them in such raw terms very often.

I believe it needs to be stressed: democratic majority does not make justice any more than did the so-called 'divine right of kings'. The majority may vote to completely subjugate the minority -- is it just? Or it may vote to remove even its own power; this may be illogical, but it is entirely possible (just look at the 20th century). And, when it is done by degrees, slowly and steadily, it is still done; and we will end in complete tyranny.

2. 'people are too self-centered...'

I reject this notion. Take a look around at multitude of charitable organizations and the force they have to use to obtain their funds. It doesn't exist. Furthermore, you neglect the basic principles of the very same self-interest you condemn - they will not contribute because they are forced to; they will do so or else watch their public amenities disappear. I argue not for no government, but for a government of beggars. I do not believe for a second that this would prevent any necessary work from being done. Were we so feeble in our desire for maintaining public infrastructure, we should not have it now, government-funded or not.

Furthermore, I see a great logical inconsistency in your assumption: you generalize and seem to basically regard great masses of people as being completely incapable of behaving in a manner conducive to a thriving society -- so they must be dragged along either in their stupidity, or with some, against their will. But somehow you see a bright shining halo descend upon them the moment they enter the voting booth (probably being a little dramatic there). This argument may be countered by saying that if I am so trustful of people, why should I also not trust them when they enter the halls of government? To this I say, precisely due to the tremendous levels of power we have allowed to be generated in those halls. I do seem to have more trust in people than you appear to, but I do not believe they are that strong, and part of me does not even blame those who become corrupted by the power we have given them, since it is nearly inevitable. Even so I am not content with the fact; I still say: wherever our governments have conferred on themselves a right to bring force against their peaceful constituents, it must be removed!

3. Without some enforcement social programs would simply fail.

Some would, no doubt. But their current existence does not provide any rationalization for their continued existence - I leave that to the people. Ostensibly, as we vote for those who create these social programs, it can be argued that the want of them has already been represented in the will of the poeple - but it is imperfect; let them not vote all-or-nothing and thereby deprive some of their liberty, but incrementally with their pocketbooks; then you will see the true measure of support for any given program...let the good ones thrive, and the bad ones be swept away.

4. '...you seem to think that it's only a 'democratic' decision if it's unanimous...etc.'

Not really - I see the issue such that the line between democracy and tyranny is found at the precise place where power is used to direct the individual (how is he not then a slave?), rather than simply to defend him. It is not a grey area - you may disagree, or you may just not see it due to being accustomed to the idea, but I suggest that the arbitrary use of force is the indicator. Democracy can be one of the most dangerous forms of government, though there is not necessarily any other which is much better. I propose only to keep it honest simply by taking out its fangs while we still can (if we can) -- though it will likely require a much more extensive devolution than we currently see before a sufficient number of the populace would agree, if that were possible at all. In this regard, the coming administration may accidentally prove be of great help, I think.

The more telling question/answer (imho) would be this: say I live in a state, and the people of my state think as I do. You say my ideas are unrealistic; it would never work...but do you believe it? If we made a petition to secede, in order to live out our unwise experiment, would you support calling the troops to stop us? If so, why? Do you own us? And, what really would you have to lose? Or...would you come too?

(theoretically speaking, that is; I'm from Minnesota, so...fat chance, and if I recall correctly you wouldn't have a say, being from that really big state to the north of me)

Anyway...I've said enough (plus some!); have a nice vacation!

JD

[simmsimaging]

Hey JD -
I'll be brief again - partly because I'm running out the door very soon, and partly because I really don't feel like investing too much energy into this discussion - I have to prioritize my time

You were correct in your first assumption that I had some idea of what is meant by 'natural law' but the fact that it seems to mean something highly specific and absolute to you suggests you need to do some more digging, or express it more clearly. I was just curious what you meant to get a sense of which it was.

I think you need to re-read what I wrote, and what you wrote, and re-consider where the assumptions and logical errors lie. Much of what you said is at least a little incoherent, but even if I give the benefit of the doubt and trust that *you* know what you mean, I can't agree with much of it. You put a great faith in logic being on your side, which it may well be, but it's the quality of your axioms and premises that are more relevant, and I think a bit dubious.

I'll answer your question though: I would not go with you, and I would let you go, and then I would tax the living shit out of anything going in or out.

Let me ask you a parting question: how old are you? (I am 37) Even a bracket if you are not comfortable divulging.

Thanks for the well-wishes on the trip.

b

[JDHill]

Brett - that's just fine with me, and I'm glad that I can respect your opinions. It is a personal issue that I am aware of, how I tend to state things so concretely - I don't mean it to sound like I think I hold the patent on logic, and in reality what you are getting is meant to be regarded as theory in most cases. But it is theory which I ultimately mean to either confirm or destroy, so the real aim on those occasions when I speak up like this is for people to tear it apart as best they can, if and when they are so inclined.

So that is the give and take, and though I don't think I've really misunderstood you a whole bunch, I can't argue for the status quo. Though I definitely cannot lay out how these things could be implemented from top to bottom, I don't think what I propose is really as unworkable as it may sound to you - it just requires that we do not expect of one another things which we have no grounds to expect, and that we demand this to be reflected in the policies of our governments. I appreciate that you answered the question I asked, but I also suspect you're in the minority on that, though it's beside the point - the question served its intended purpose. As to age, I'm 33, however that plays into things.

Cheers,

JD