Those of us who have heard of the Hutaree before are scratching our heads.
Yeah, they're extreme, but they're also committed. If they were as dangerous as they are made out to be now, don't you think one of them would have started shooting by now?
They don't know WTF is going on either. I find that far scarier than a "criminal militia".
Nope - there is an "individual mandate" to purchase insurance. If you do not have insurance, you are assessed a fine of the greater of $2,250, or 2% of your income (once the plan is fully implemented).
I would argue that it isn't that the Constitution hasn't kept up with the time, but that our government has failed to live up to the Constitution.
When the federal government wishes to grow, it should do so by amendment - there is a process in place for that, and it works.
As for the "services" you mention, the Constitution fully supports the FBI as a federal enforcement agency. As for the standing army, we *technically* don't have one - we have an appropriations bill go through Congress that authorizes the continued expenditure of federal funds to maintain it. If Congress wanted to do away with it, all they would have to do is not pass a bill, and the funding evaporates. While I don't think this was the intent of the Framers, it certainly falls within the bounds of the authority granted to the federal government.
The rest... well, they are unconstitutional. They should be either authorized via amendment, or they should be repealed. I acknowledge that some of these programs are now part of the fabric of the American culture, but that doesn't make them right - it just makes them hard and slow to repeal.
I'm no Paulite. While I think he's got the right idea on domestic and monetary policy, he "bring them home tomorrow" foreign policy is insane. Indeed, he seeks to restore constitutional government - a noble goal - in many arenas, but he seeks to do so overnight. That would be catastrophic for this country.
As for the Second Amendment. I'm sure you're aware that the Supreme Court recently shot down the collectivist interpretation of the Second in Heller. As for the "civic purpose" part - well, yes and no. Yes, individuals were expected to be able to serve as militia to fend off attackers and to keep the peace - but that is not the rationale for the amendment, that is only it's primary use. "... necessary to the security of a *free* state... " is the rub - our Framers recognized that a state whose citizens where unable to purchase arms was not a free state.
Finally, as for effectiveness --- having a gun does not make you an effective fighter any more than having a hat makes you a cowboy. It takes motivation, mindset, training, and practice to become proficient in the use of firearms, and to maintain that. I agree that both sides of the argument are guilty of inflating statistics and hyperbolizing (is that a word? It is now!), but in the end, the effectiveness of the weapon is not relevant to it's status as a natural right.
I know you're being facetious, but Jefferson in his elder years did things that Jefferson in his younger years would have found abhorrent. Truthfully, he vindicated his younger self, as he had previously indicated that the power of the Presidency is enough to corrupt - or at least change - anyone.
I'm in agreement with you on the intent of the founders, but the fact is, you're wrong on the "promote" argument. That is indeed how it is written in the Preamble, but Article 1, Section 8 begins with:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Now, that doesn't mean what the GP thinks it does, anymore than "well regulated" means "limited" in the context of the Second Amendment - but it is there, and it is important not to lose your credence because you've not bothered to read the Constitution before defending it.
Indeed. Adobe doesn't make their money on hobbyists. They don't even really make their money on small shops. They make their money on mega corporations who buy a dozen licenses because they need to crop photos, and their employees all know how to do that in Photoshop, because they've pirated every version since 5.5.
Not sure that was directed at me, but I disagree, while recognizing that many who call themselves "Objectivists" are indeed sociopathic.
Still, I would indeed hold selfishness - as in, rational, long-term self-interest - as the ultimate ideal. "There are no conflicts of interest among rational men" is a true statement, so far as I can tell.
Well, I certainly don't disagree that a society is completely interconnected - that's obvious, and proven quite well.
The delineation is, though, that all of those connections are entered into willingly - your suppliers can stop selling to you, your employees can go to work for someone else (or themselves), and your customers can go to a competitor.
There is no mechanism for me to "opt-out" of this bill.
As for infrastructure, I'm not convinced the government has the derived authority to build roads or subsidize internet access.
The ultimate question here is this: What is the proper role of the government? I agree with Rand here, in that the only moral use of governmental power is to prevent the use of physical force between parties.
Also note that while I consider myself an Objectivist most days, I am not a Randist. There are many things that we disagree on - her work is not the Bible, merely catalyst for independent thought. I've been kicked out of several "Objectivist" discussions for arguing against Rand, and have developed an intense loathing for those idiots that worship her as a demigod.
You're offended by someone who has complete confidence in his beliefs, after having spend the time required to examine them thoroughly and understand the moral and logical underpinnings?
I've answered you in another thread, but there is a big difference between providing for a police force via taxes - something the federal and state governments are specifically empowered to do - and forcing individuals to buy something from a private company.
And no, I don't have fire coverage where I live. There is a volunteer department nearby, though I live outside their coverage area. I do have fire insurance, though. I also live within my means, and if my car were to be destroyed, even in a way my insurance wouldn't cover, I wouldn't be demanding that the government give me a car.
Those things are taxes - I don't agree with them, but they are within the scope of the power granted the government by the people via the state and federal constitutions. Well, perhaps schools are not, but that is debatable.
This healthcare nonsense is not a tax - you are being forced to purchase something from a private company. More importantly, there is no constitutional authority for this. The federal government does *not* have the power to compel purchases by individuals.
If you want universal healthcare, then get a constitutional amendment.
I flatly disagree - no one has claim to the fruits of your labor other than you. Period
How can you justify your position? You've just stated that a man lives his life at the behest of society, and owes that society - is that what you really believe?
BTW - I appreciate the honest, non-screeching debate. It's a rare thing these days when men can discuss ideas in a public forum without personal attacks and strawmen. While I don't agree with you it seems, I can appreciate your viewpoint.
And by "men", I mean humans - as in, "the race of men". Stupid PC drivel...
Slashdot Mirror
DNS poisoning?
It seems to have worked up your ire.
Those of us who have heard of the Hutaree before are scratching our heads.
Yeah, they're extreme, but they're also committed. If they were as dangerous as they are made out to be now, don't you think one of them would have started shooting by now?
They don't know WTF is going on either. I find that far scarier than a "criminal militia".
Yes, we have. Lincoln declared martial law during the Civil War, with the authorization of Congress.
Hmm.. A BMW to the right person in the NASA Communications dept. would do the trick, I imagine.
Nope - there is an "individual mandate" to purchase insurance. If you do not have insurance, you are assessed a fine of the greater of $2,250, or 2% of your income (once the plan is fully implemented).
I didn't say I'd "be okay with it", but it would be within the power of the federal government - so long as the insurance was sold across state lines.
Admittedly, my experience is with the Mega-Corp :)
I would argue that it isn't that the Constitution hasn't kept up with the time, but that our government has failed to live up to the Constitution.
When the federal government wishes to grow, it should do so by amendment - there is a process in place for that, and it works.
As for the "services" you mention, the Constitution fully supports the FBI as a federal enforcement agency. As for the standing army, we *technically* don't have one - we have an appropriations bill go through Congress that authorizes the continued expenditure of federal funds to maintain it. If Congress wanted to do away with it, all they would have to do is not pass a bill, and the funding evaporates. While I don't think this was the intent of the Framers, it certainly falls within the bounds of the authority granted to the federal government.
The rest... well, they are unconstitutional. They should be either authorized via amendment, or they should be repealed. I acknowledge that some of these programs are now part of the fabric of the American culture, but that doesn't make them right - it just makes them hard and slow to repeal.
I'm no Paulite. While I think he's got the right idea on domestic and monetary policy, he "bring them home tomorrow" foreign policy is insane. Indeed, he seeks to restore constitutional government - a noble goal - in many arenas, but he seeks to do so overnight. That would be catastrophic for this country.
As for the Second Amendment. I'm sure you're aware that the Supreme Court recently shot down the collectivist interpretation of the Second in Heller. As for the "civic purpose" part - well, yes and no. Yes, individuals were expected to be able to serve as militia to fend off attackers and to keep the peace - but that is not the rationale for the amendment, that is only it's primary use. " ... necessary to the security of a *free* state ... " is the rub - our Framers recognized that a state whose citizens where unable to purchase arms was not a free state.
Finally, as for effectiveness --- having a gun does not make you an effective fighter any more than having a hat makes you a cowboy. It takes motivation, mindset, training, and practice to become proficient in the use of firearms, and to maintain that. I agree that both sides of the argument are guilty of inflating statistics and hyperbolizing (is that a word? It is now!), but in the end, the effectiveness of the weapon is not relevant to it's status as a natural right.
I know you're being facetious, but Jefferson in his elder years did things that Jefferson in his younger years would have found abhorrent. Truthfully, he vindicated his younger self, as he had previously indicated that the power of the Presidency is enough to corrupt - or at least change - anyone.
I use it to map out hunting locations, photography possibilities, and hiking trails.
Other than that, I'm not really sure.
I'm in agreement with you on the intent of the founders, but the fact is, you're wrong on the "promote" argument. That is
indeed how it is written in the Preamble, but Article 1, Section 8 begins with:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Now, that doesn't mean what the GP thinks it does, anymore than "well regulated" means "limited" in the context of the Second Amendment - but it is there, and it is important not to lose your credence because you've not bothered to read the Constitution before defending it.
I would guess that the *vast* majority of those opposed to the healthcare bill would also be opposed to this.
Indeed. Adobe doesn't make their money on hobbyists. They don't even really make their money on small shops. They make their money on mega corporations who buy a dozen licenses because they need to crop photos, and their employees all know how to do that in Photoshop, because they've pirated every version since 5.5.
What's wrong with the old definition?
"When you say one thing, but mean your mother"?
Not sure that was directed at me, but I disagree, while recognizing that many who call themselves "Objectivists" are indeed sociopathic.
Still, I would indeed hold selfishness - as in, rational, long-term self-interest - as the ultimate ideal. "There are no conflicts of interest among rational men" is a true statement, so far as I can tell.
Well, I certainly don't disagree that a society is completely interconnected - that's obvious, and proven quite well.
The delineation is, though, that all of those connections are entered into willingly - your suppliers can stop selling to you, your employees can go to work for someone else (or themselves), and your customers can go to a competitor.
There is no mechanism for me to "opt-out" of this bill.
As for infrastructure, I'm not convinced the government has the derived authority to build roads or subsidize internet access.
The ultimate question here is this: What is the proper role of the government? I agree with Rand here, in that the only moral use of governmental power is to prevent the use of physical force between parties.
Also note that while I consider myself an Objectivist most days, I am not a Randist. There are many things that we disagree on - her work is not the Bible, merely catalyst for independent thought. I've been kicked out of several "Objectivist" discussions for arguing against Rand, and have developed an intense loathing for those idiots that worship her as a demigod.
You're offended by someone who has complete confidence in his beliefs, after having spend the time required to examine them thoroughly and understand the moral and logical underpinnings?
Now I'm smug *and* confused.
I've answered you in another thread, but there is a big difference between providing for a police force via taxes - something the federal and state governments are specifically empowered to do - and forcing individuals to buy something from a private company.
And no, I don't have fire coverage where I live. There is a volunteer department nearby, though I live outside their coverage area. I do have fire insurance, though. I also live within my means, and if my car were to be destroyed, even in a way my insurance wouldn't cover, I wouldn't be demanding that the government give me a car.
Those things are taxes - I don't agree with them, but they are within the scope of the power granted the government by the people via the state and federal constitutions. Well, perhaps schools are not, but that is debatable.
This healthcare nonsense is not a tax - you are being forced to purchase something from a private company. More importantly, there is no constitutional authority for this. The federal government does *not* have the power to compel purchases by individuals.
If you want universal healthcare, then get a constitutional amendment.
It must suck to be so offended by someone who doesn't share your value system.
If you get so upset with someone being different on the internet, I imagine your reaction in person would be quite amusing to watch.
I flatly disagree - no one has claim to the fruits of your labor other than you. Period
How can you justify your position? You've just stated that a man lives his life at the behest of society, and owes that society - is that what you really believe?
BTW - I appreciate the honest, non-screeching debate. It's a rare thing these days when men can discuss ideas in a public forum without personal attacks and strawmen. While I don't agree with you it seems, I can appreciate your viewpoint.
And by "men", I mean humans - as in, "the race of men". Stupid PC drivel...
So, I'm supposed to forfeit my own life because I might impact someone else?
You don't have the right not to be "affected" by me, and I don't have the right not to be "affected" by you.
That doesn't mean that you have any moral authority to use to coercive power of government to achieve your own ends.
Then move whatever direction you wish, just leave me alone.
Asking for assistance is entirely different that demanding that others be responsible for you problems.