or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by foregoneconclusion

  What about all of the contradictions that existed in terms of those "inalienable" rights at the time (like slavery, voting rights, and women's rights)? All of the amendments to the Constitution going forward from that time? Those kinds of things don't really fit into the idea of the Constitution not functionally granting the rights to the citizens of the United States. There are far too many historical disagreements about the scope of the rights you're supposedly born...
  I'm a realist. You can talk all day long about inalienable rights, but when it comes down to it...you need a functioning representative government with the power to enforce those rights to have any real prospect of experiencing them. And even then, it might take hundreds of years before it really happens for everyone within your society, as in the United States.    As for Alan Greenspan, he literally seemed to believe that the private markets were like a giant poker...
  Representative government is quite obviously both of those things at the same time. The Constitution didn't write itself, and there's no reason to write it if it's not going to be enforced.
  Rothbard referred to his own ideas about society as "anarcho-capitalism". Some of the "highlights" of anarcho-capitalism include the complete lack of political representation of any kind, and a legal/judicial system that is completely run by private companies who are somehow in "competition" with each other. The whole thing is supposed to work simply because everyone agrees to be "non-aggressive" and that all individuals are "sovereign". It basically sounds similar to...
  You made a derogatory remark about rule by majority in regards to the NDAA as well, as if it were rule by majority that created it. In fact, it was both the majority AND minority creating it.   And, yes, our rights are granted by the government, because it's the government that enforces them. That's why Ron Paul wants to eliminate the ability of the federal government to enforce those rights outside of the public sector. No enforcement = no rights...unless you have the...
  The NDAA had bipartisan support (especially within the Senate), so it's not a very good example of the elected majority abusing the elected minority. Rather, it's just an example of bad legislation. However, the question to you would be this: if the powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states, and you believe the NDAA is outside the powers of the federal government, then does that mean the states could pass NDAA style legislation?   As for...
  I would refer Ron Paul to the three branches of the federal government. If the founding fathers didn't intend for the federal government to pass, repeal or enforce laws on behalf of the citizens of the United States, then they wouldn't have created such an elaborate structure for doing just that. "Limited powers" isn't the same thing as "no powers".   What Ron Paul really wants is freedom FROM the Constitution, i.e., the federal government doesn't have the power to...
  Self-governance? How do you explain the three branches of the government then? Why would the founding fathers create an elaborate system for passing and enforcing federal laws that apply to every citizen of the country? How do you explain the "United" part of "United States"?
  The founding fathers wanted checks and balances within the government, but they weren't actually trying to prevent the rule of the majority. 
  I never said it was a direct democracy. I said that if you reject the basic idea of rule by majority, then you're backsliding into the feudal mindset of rule by minority.
New Posts  All Forums: