The interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is the biggest divide of this nation today. It is the foundational basis for partisan politics. When there is more than one way to interpret the Constitution at least one interpretation of it will compromise the principles of its intent for existence. This can only be called political ideology.
When the people are ruled over by those persons who adheres to this misinterpretation only one thing can be understood. It must be understood that the people are being ruled by the men of government who seek to possess absolute power and authority over the people. This is always the inevitable end result whenever political ideology trumps any and every constitution.
There are two paths that men who seek absolute power can take in order to possess the absolute power over the people they want to rule. One path would require gaining the trust of the people and the other path is by instilling fear into the people. The only difference being is that one possesses the authority as well as the power to rule in an absolute manner while the other path is the path of power without the authority to rule.
The latter path is the usual path of those we consider and identify as dictators and violence is their usual trademark to gain their power and for dissent once power is possessed. The former path uses laws not only to gain their power but also, when necessary, to stifle minority dissent. Force is the common denominator of both paths. The only difference is the intent of the use of force and whether or not force is authorized.
The path of those who seek to gain the trust of the people in order to gain absolute power will adhere to the principle that the government is the servant of the people rather than their master. They will seek to enact laws that makes it appear to be so. It is by focusing on these type of laws that results in the gaining of the trust needed for absolute power.
The path of those who seek absolute power will promote themselves as the protectors of the people rather than the enforcers of the laws they enact. In order to create this perception they must create an enemy, within a society, in the minds of the people. This enemy must be promoted as having greater power than they deserve to have. In creating this perceived enemy in the minds of the people, the people will then become dependent upon those who seek absolute rule for protection from this enemy.
In a nation that uses a democratic method of choosing their leaders one more factor must be considered. Those who seek absolute power over the people must convince enough followers to accept their political ideology as a valid basis of governing in order to be elected. This would mean that the constitution of a nation, if a nation already possesses one, must be presented and accepted as being something other than it was intended to be.
A written constitution is a document meant to recognize the need of government and to give limited powers and authority of rule to those who occupy the seats of government they were elected to as defined in that constitution. That is its sole purpose and intent of existence. If that wasn't its sole purpose and intent absolute power of government rule over the people would be the only conclusion that a person could come to.
With this limitation of power and authority as a given then it must be acknowledged When those persons enact laws outside of the powers and authority declared in that constitution they no longer are ruling over the people with authority but only ruling by the power of their position. This can only be considered as an abuse of power and a violation of their oath of office. When this occurs those who are ruled have no obligation to abide by that law thus has the constitutional authority of civil disobedience.
In conclusion, those who view government as our master will seek to have few laws enacted because they wish to rule over their own lives as much as possible. Those who view government as our servant will seek as many laws enacted as necessary to be perceived and treated as if the people ruled over their government.
So, we will be voting in a couple of weeks and we will be voting for a master or a servant. The first question a voter must ask himself before heading into that booth is whether or not he will be voting for self-rule of his own life or voting for his life being ruled over by the man he is voting for. The States have already lost their right of self rule.
WELCOMES YOU to his little home in cyberspace.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 comments:
Another Path to Power is Deception, just as Obama Promised all sorts of Things and yet is Not Delivering on what he Promised. The Liberal Control Over the Media is also a Form of Deception, because that which is Presented is Biased and therefore, Only Half of what's True.
In an Earlier Post, you had Compared Politics to Marriage, yet in Marriage, Dictatorship does not Result in Love. A Man who has the Fear of his Partner, may not Necessarily have the her Love and also a Man who has a Partner who Stays out of Insecurity and the Fear of Independence also may not have her Love, Affection, Loyalty, Honor, Trust and Respect.
Whether it be Relationships or Politics, the Story is the Same. Those who Value Power over Love and True Loyalty will Gain the Former, but Miss Out on the Most Valuable Quality that Exists in Life. Those who Chose to Not Care about these Things will not Find the Deeper Levels of Fulfillment that Life has to Offer them.
Earning the Trust of Followers is Different than Force. A Leader will Earn Trust by Doing the Right Thing and Processing Good Character. These are the Leaders that Continue to be Loved and Respected even after their Term in Office is Over.
Though Force may be Used in Relation to the Enforcement of the Laws, the basic Loyalty and Respect of the Followers is not Forced and there is a Big Difference here.
In my Opinion, Absolute Power Negates Trust. Trust only Exists when the Followers are Allowed some Level of Freedom and Power over their Own Lives and Choices.
Since this is Obviously going to be a Two Part Response, I Think I'll Break and Post this now.
You have said that "Those who Seek to Gain the Trust of the People" will "seek to enact laws that make it appear to be so." That is Appear to be "the servant of the people, rather than their master."
The Word "Appear" Indicates Deception, not Genuine Servitude. To be Genuine, the Trust Earned has to be Based on Reality, not just Appearances and the Driving Force and Motive of the Leader has to be a Genuine Concern and Love for the People, not Power over them.
Jesus Taught about Servant Leadership and I guess I could do a whole Post on that. For Now, I'm just Going to Collect a Few Scripture References that you can Look Up, if you Want to.
Philippians 2:3-8, Matthew 10:39, Mark 9:35, Mark 10:44.
In Short, a Servant Leader is Both Humble and Sacrificial, just as Jesus made the Ultimate Sacrifice of His Own Life on the Cross, in Order to bring Salvation to the World.
If God and Jesus had Desired Absolute Power, they would not Have Created Man with Free Will.
Absolute Power can not be the Goal. The Power may be a By Product, but the Goal of a Good and Loving Servant Leader will not be the Power, but the Welfare of the People.
"promote themselves as the protectors of the people rather than the enforcers of the laws they enact."
The Leader you are Describing, Griper, is Emphasizing that which the he "Promotes", not that which the he Actually is, for Words and Phrases such as "Promote", "Create this Perception", "In the Minds of the People" and "Perceived Enemy" Suggest Deception, not Reality and Integrity.
Towards the End of the Post, Griper, you began to say Things that I found to be Quite Insightful. Let me Take One more Breath before I go on.
thank you lista. it will be interesting to see what others have to say about your views on this.
"When those persons enact laws outside of the powers and authority declared in that constitution, they no longer are ruling over the people with authority, but only ruling by the power of their position."
Oh! You mean they are not Acting Under the Authority of the Constitution and here is the Really Neat Part!!
"When this occurs, those who are ruled have NO OBLIGATION to abide by that law, thus has the Constitutional Authority of Civil Disobedience."
Now that is almost Worth Repeating Quite a Few Times. You have Actually Made a Light Bulb go Off in my Head, Griper. No Kidding! Congratulations! You see, when the Government is not Following the Constitution, we are the Ones who have the AUTHORITY and Possibly even a Civil Duty to Disobey.
I guess the Only Problem I am still having is that you have not Made the Distinction between a Deceptive Servant and a True Servant Leader and Trust Earned Through Deception verses Trust Earned by Genuine Integrity.
I guess what you are getting at, though, is that if, as our "Master", the Government has too much Power and the People do not have much Influence, then we will not want a lot of Rules, yet if, as our "Servant", the Government does not have that much Power and the People do still have Influence, then we will not Mind a Lot of Rules. Tell me if I am Interpreting that Correctly.
Towards the End, I was Beginning to get your Meaning and have decided that this is, In Fact, a Very Good Post.
lista,
"Tell me if I am Interpreting that Correctly."
you are close but you added words not meant to be understood in it.
eliminate these words from your statement;
" the Government has too much Power and the People do not have much Influence, then we will not want a lot of Rules,"
and;
"the Government does not have that much Power and the People do still have Influence,"
reason;
A Master has the power and authority to command and a servant must obey those commands or be subject to the consequences of his disobedience unless he is given the authority to disobey.
lista,
oops i eliminated too many words in the first quote. only eliminate these words:
" the Government has too much Power and the People do not have much Influence"
Your Focus is just a Little Different than Mine. You are Focusing on the Nature of Authority and I am Focusing on what Motivates the Followers to Trust or not Trust and how they are Perceiving the "Master" and "Servant". It is very Hard, if not Impossible, to Trust Authority that we can not Influence.
Even if my Words are Different then the Intent of your Post, I don't wish to Remove them, because I believe them to Describe something that is Accurate.
Your Focus is also on Consequences and thus, Fear. My Focus is on the Presence or Absence of Trust. Trust, or Lack thereof, is a Different Motive than Fear.
Another thing to Consider is that Some People Trust the Government and Mistrust Wealthy Business Men and others Trust the Business Men and not the Government, yet the Truth is that there is Abuse of Power and Mistreatment of the Followers in Both Places.
Within a blog like this, focus is necessary because any post would be too long to read if one was to try to cover all the issues involved.
and i never said that your statement was inaccurate or accurate but it doesn't interpret my words accurately.
it was you that asked if you were interpreting my words correctly and i only eliminated those words to reveal the interpretation intended.
"The States have already lost their right of self rule."
Yep, that was hashed out at Gettysburg, Jul 3, 1863
That's the Reason for the Comment Section. And I Never Said that you said my Statement was Inaccurate or Accurate. Only that if it is not Exactly what you Intended, then I will add it, because I Feel it is Accurate.
Remember, though, I complemented you by Telling you that you Made a Light Bulb go On in my Head.
I Hope I haven't Written too much. I'd also like to hear what others have to say.
BB,
do you realize the implication of your comment? it implies that war trumps the constitution when it comes to rights within a nation thus in essence declaring the constitution irrelevant now.
The Constitution was Designed in a Way in which Amendments could be Added and sometimes these Amendments Change the Original Constitution.
You Wouldn't ever Suggest that Slavery was a good Thing would you? Should Certain States be Allowed to have Slaves? Is the Taking away of that Particular Right from the States really such a Negative?
It was the Constitution that recognized the right of self-rule of the States, lista. Thus the only legitimate way to take that right away from the States is by Constitutional amendment not war.
and when the right of self rule is denied a state, every other right as possessed by the State is denied also. the State no longer exists as a State.
thus a deception is being propagated by the federal government. the meaning behind the name of our nation is no longer valid.
"do you realize the implication of your comment?" Not sure..
We the people of the UNITED STATES, in order to form a more PERFECT UNION..
The Articles of Confederation was recognized very early as
a collection of states, much as the Colonies had been. With the Revolution going badly and each state
contributing or not, as they saw THEIR rights, the founders moved quickly to
the Constitution. Thus we became a NATION, not an association of states that happened to be contiguous.
The NATION was formed in war...and it was preserved in war. I consider myself an AMERICAN, that happens to live in Idaho. When I was in the military, I served in the early 60s in Alabama, and I am quite familiar with the underside of 'states rights'. Now you Californians must be aware of 'states rights' for your environmental law surpasses that of the US! :)
We admit of the prescience of the founders and consider the words of Thomas Jefferson in 1816-
"I know that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progess of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances INSTITUTIONS must advance also, and keep pace with the times"
..hence the Amendment process, and hence the
judicial interpetation by the Supreme Court since the birth of the country.
..and in maintenance thereof, "A house divided
divided against itself cannot stand" Lincoln.
Time seems to be a unidirectional vector, the
effects of its path are
History. We best can learn from that. (Sorry Griper,
now I seem to be griping)
He grins,
if you be griping BB, your gripes are most welcomed on this blog. We may be on either side of the political centerpoint but together we stand in our love for our country and nation, i believe.
you, above all, have inspired me to delve deeper into my own thoughts and ideas over the years and for that i am grateful to you.
Another Two Part Comment. Part One…
There were Amendments Added after the War, Griper. And Unfortunately, War sometimes Happens and it is always an Attack on someone's Sovereignty. One of the Parties is Attacking the Sovereignty and the Other is Defending it.
The Next Attack on State Sovereignty was not done by War, though, but by the Supreme Court and that was Roe vs. Wade. If we want our Sovereignty back, perhaps that is where we should Start.
"when the right of self rule is denied a state, every other right, as possessed by the State, is denied also."
That's Black and White, all or Nothing, Thinking. That's like Saying that if the Government Takes away the Right from Citizens to Commit Certain Crimes, then there is absolutely no Freedom Left. Laws could be Viewed as an Attack on the Sovereignty of the Citizens over their Own Lives and yet Unfortunately, some Laws are necessary, for without them, we would have Anarchy.
Back to the Statement that we have been Discussing, though. If I Eliminate the Words that you have Suggested from my Explanation of what you said, it would Read like this..., "If, as our 'Master', then we will not want a lot of Rules, yet if, as our 'Servant', then we will not Mind a Lot of Rules."
This is Unclear, though, because it says nothing about what is Meant by "Master" and "Servant" and how the people are Viewing these Ideas. What I was Pointing out is that if a Master can be Influenced and thus Trusted, then his Power to Enforce Rules and Regulations is not a Negative. If he can not be Influenced and Trusted, then such Power is a Negative.
Part Two...
Another way to View "Servant" and "Master" is in that a Desire for a "Servant" could be Viewed as Selfish and Lazy, but the Desire for a "Master" is more Responsible. This gets Confusing, though, because a Desire for a "Master" could be Viewed as Lazy too, in the Sense that a "Master" is a Decision Maker and so a Person who wants one could be Viewed as Lazy in the Area of Decision Making.
With this, I am Probably Moving Farther and Farther away from what you are Trying to say, but that is because what you are Trying to say is not Clear.
How about this? If we want someone to Serve us, we will allow them more and more Power to do so, yet if we View the Government as a Master instead, we will Limit the Power to Rule because we do not Like being Ruled.
I have Difficulty Separating the Idea from Trust, though, because if we Trust the "Master" to be a Generous and Loving "Servant Leader", that is when we are Willing to allow him Additional Power to Rule. So Trust has everything to do with it. Democrats Trust the Government and Conservatives do not. It is that Simple.
Let me Repeat again something that I said above...
"Some People Trust the Government and Mistrust Wealthy Business Men and others Trust the Business Men and not the Government, yet the Truth is that there is Abuse of Power and Mistreatment of the Followers in Both Places."
Trust can be Gained in two Ways; by Integrity and True Character, or by Deception, but I'll Leave that Subject for another day.
lista,
""Servant Leader", is an oxymoron.
The Phrase "Servant Leader" is a Christian Concept based on the Verses that I Listed in my Second Comment. There are a lot of apparent Contradictions in the Bible because Opposites are Connected in this way, yet it is all about Balance and the Fact that Things are not as they Seem.
A Servant Leader is a Humble Leader who has a Servant Attitude. Jesus was a Servant Leader and His Life was more about Sacrifice, than about Power.
If you want to Understand more about the Servant Leader, then you will Need to Read the Verses.
"That's Black and White, all or Nothing,"
no it isn't, lista. every right that a State possesses are dependent upon self rule. withhout self rule States have no rights. Without the right of self rule a State no longer is considered a State but reverts to a status akin to a colony. that is a poltical definition of the word State and the reason that the States have constitutions.
"Without the right of self rule a State no longer is considered a State but reverts to a status akin to a colony." I guess the obverse would be that a state be a small nation?
(must ponder that..hmm interstate commerce would become international, 'On Wisconsin', the national anthem in Madison, a truck of lettuce need pass through 35 customs checks and by golly, when I cross the bridge into Washington state, I would be an international traveler!)
BB,
A State is a nation as well as a Country.
While the common person uses the words interchangably, political science has a definite definition of each.
the word State refers to the government which rules.
the word Nation refers to the individuals who are ruled over by that government
the word Country refers to the territory of that rule.
the word people is collective and refers to the totality of persons, those persons who rule as well as those who are ruled either as singular units or as a totality of the individuals depending upon which of the above words is used.
in essense, what you said about traveling over State lines is a correct observe in political terms.
The EU is patterned after this concept which is why it is somtimes referred to as the United States of Europe.
it is also from this concept we see more clearly how those people that are elected to rule are subject to the same laws as those people who are ruled.
this opposes the concept of the divine right of kings to rule where kings were not subject to the laws he imposed upon the people.
Griper,
In my Opinion, the Failure to see a Distinction between Total Self-Rule and Partial Self-Rule is Black and White. On an Individual Level, Total Self-Rule, would Include the Right and Freedom to Steal, Murder, Rape, etc., yet if these few Freedoms are Taken Away, this does not Mean that the People in this Country are no Longer Free.
Likewise, just because you Take Away One Right from the States in Relation to Slavery, does not mean that there is no Sovereignty Left. It's just that the Habit of the Federal Government Stealing Away the Sovereignty of the States has never Stopped and so now there is Very Little Left, yet no Single Event, such as the Civil War, has Caused this. It has been a Long Process of Gradual Decay that has now Reached Levels that Many Feel are Unacceptable.
Those who have an inability to see anything in Terms of Degrees, rather than all one way or the other, are those who Think in Black and White.
"While the common person uses the words
interchangably" That would be me..common!
..small wonder we can use
'national' but seldom
'statial' :)
When I vote, I don't consider whether a candidate is a Master or Servant...I vote for the one that is closest to my views. (which see above, are pretty dang common)
Interesting Comment BB,
You are Pointing Out how States are Different from Nations in that there are not Custom Checks between them and they do not Have National Anthems. As far as I know, there have never been Custom Checks between States.
Griper,
I guess those who Rule should also be Subject to the Same Pension Plans and Health Plans as the Rest of us as well, huh?
I'm with BB. Sometimes it's best to just go with the Common Definitions of Words and not Worry so much about all these Technicalities.
lista,
" On an Individual Level, Total Self-Rule, would Include the Right and Freedom to Steal, Murder, Rape, etc.,"
think a little deeper than that.
what would be the right of those whose property is about to be stolen?
what would be the right whose life was about to be taken?
what would be the right of those who was about to be raped, etc.?
BB,
the word "common" has changed in its meaning over the years. when we were under the rule of the king of England common referred to those without title and were referred to as the common people or commoners.
now days it just means, as we call them,, the average person. and we all fall under that catagory, even me.
i am just as guilty of using the words interchangably in conversation in regards to the words nation and state or country. but i try to use the words in their political meaning in my posts.
As you know from your own career all specialized disciplines do this whether it be in the field of law, theology, science.
Griper,
Well, in the Case of Anarchy, all People would have the Right to Defend their Life, Property and Bodies with whatever Means Necessary, yet the Government was Given the Task to Assist in this Matter, so that we would not have to be Constantly in Fear and on Guard trying to do it Ourselves.
I Chuckled at your Response to BB, because you are Still so Focused on Words. One Thing that we Need to Consider when we Talk and Write is rather or not Our Audience Actually Knows all the Technical Definitions of the Words we Use. I don't Think I'll Really Debate this with you, though. It's your Posts, so you do what you want to.
"As you know from your own career all specialized disciplines do this whether it be in the field of law, theology, science."
..I realize that, Griper.
An odd quirk, I like to
'pull people's legs'..once wrote a technical report on
findings about Russian explosives to an executive.
IN RUSSIAN. Don't know how my family lives with me!
I (the commoner) would consider the states within the Union as entities, geographical and political
which hold much in common, some things not. The languages sometimes seem
dissimilar as well..listining to a Maine
fellow talking to a Texan will drive ya to drink...
lista,
on the individual level, self rule would be a nation in a state of anarchy. in other words it would be a nation without government to rule over them. each person would be their own government.
BB,
"The languages sometimes seem
dissimilar as well..listining to a Maine
fellow talking to a Texan will drive ya to drink..."
he laughs, ain't that the truth. always happens when a person isn't familiar jargon of a particular discipline. "legalese" is the most favorite culprit of us commoners.
scientific jargon coming in a close second.
Griper,
I Fail to see your Point. My Point is that Anarchy is not Really Freedom because the Crime is so High that People Live in Fear, rather than Freedom. The Ideal, then, Includes a Few Laws and Regulations.
The Same is True of the States. For there to be Unity, Freedom, or in this Case, Sovereignty is not Absolute and Total. Just as Simply being Deprived of the Right to Murder does not Take Away all Freedom, so also Simply being Deprived of the Freedom to Own Slaves does not Take away all Sovereignty.
Anarchy, lista, is the state of a nation where the individual has absolute liberty. that is the extreme position of the right.
my question to you and your answer to that question would apply to all persons in an state of anarchy.
each man would have the right to make his own decision of what is right and wrong and act upon it. and in doing he can reap the benefits of that act or suffer the consequences of that act. each man makes his own laws in regards to his own behavior.
in this state only a code of ethics like the "ten commandments" in the case of a Christian or a jewish nation guides a man's behavior.
that is the state of a nation when,as you said, take the level of self rule down to the individual.
this is basically the state of the nation of the Isrealites before they asked for a king.
just an added note. a dictatorship or a monarchy is the state of a nation of the extreme position to the left.
thus, the Isrealites went from one extreme to the other in terms of government rule.
"just an added note. a dictatorship or a monarchy is the state of a nation of the extreme position to the left." Was talking to a guy the other day that called himself a 'socialist anarchist'.
His opinion was that the left had gone so far that it was circling towards
rightwing anarchy.
Since King Louis XIV
held his poor subjects with such little regard
(recall he taxed them, but not the rich, nor the clergy), I'm having trouble
considering his monarchy
'on the left', given the
perception that 'left' means taking care of people. (the old cradle to the grave thing). Now, it is true that Bismark introduced social security, and so did Winston Churchill in their countries in the early 1900
era. (the 'bread dole' of the old Roman Empire also instructs) Not so much as a nice thing to do, but to avoid poor rioting, crime
and the rise of socialism.
So I would take exception to monarchy/dictatorship as being a position to
'the left'. It may be in some instances, (USSR)in others to 'the right' (Spain throughout much of its history) and yet others
such gov'ts would be considered neither..British history, for example; Charles I IMO, rightwing..Cromwell
left-wing, James I centrist. (from the standpoint of classical
'conservatism' vis a vis
classical 'progressivism).
To summarize, IMO, monarchy/dictatorship not only would not be 'extreme left'..it may not always
meet the definition of
'extreme'. We note the added difficulty of assigning the terms which were not even recognized until (Qu'est-ce que le tiers-état?) when the Estates General met in Paris in 1789. Peasants,
farmers and small businessmen sat on the
'left'...Bishops and Nobility on the 'right'.
Since those 'estates' on the right paid no taxes,
they wished to 'conserve' the status quo..since those sitting on the left
bore the entire burden of taxation, they desired
'progress' in terms of sharing the tax burden.
The current British monarchy is an anachronism,
hardly extreme, and likely neither 'left' or 'right',
just a leftover tradition the Brits seem to like...
Well, I was Putting this Off, but since BB left a Comment, I better also Submit Mine.
Hi Griper,
There is nothing in your Last Comment that Gives me any Clue what your Opinion is. All it is is Definitions and Descriptions, but there is no Actual Substance in Relation to Opinion. Since you are not Making any Actual Point, I guess you could say that your Comment is Pointless. :)
I guess it is good of you to Admit that there is an Extreme Position to the Right, yet the Question now is just how Far Towards this Extreme Right are you Willing to go?
Whenever you have Extreme or Absolute Freedom, Liberty and Self-Rule, you have Anarchy.
"the Isrealites went from one extreme to the other in terms of government rule."
Yes, and that is such a Typical Thing for these Crazy Human Being Creatures to do.
BB,
Whether the Left means Taking Care of People Depends on your Political Views. A lot of Conservatives say it is not about Taking Care of People, but about Control, yet both of these things are True.
Here's just one more Comment and then I'll go do Something Else.
What I want to Know, Griper, is just how far to the Extreme Right are you Willing to go?
Do you know that I Actually met a Libertarian Recently who Thinks we should go Back in Time and Set up Vigilance Committees to Impose Law, rather than the Government. I Guess what he Actually said was that the Government should Stay Out of Domestic Disputes and that that Job should Return to the Churches.
He Explained how the Original Meaning of the Phrase "Jury of our Peers" was a Jury made up of those with Similar Belief Systems as themselves, thus, the Churches.
The Problem is that Back when there were Vigilance Committees, we had this Group Known as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and my Friend Claims that the KKK Actually Started as a Vigilance Committee, yet as we all Know, that is not what they are Known for. The Wikipedia Describes them as a "Far Right" Group whose Main Focus was "White Supremacy, White Nationalism and Anti-Immigration". They were Known for all Sorts of Racism and Terrorism and were Considered a "Hate Group".
The Other Common Occurrence during the Era of Vigilance Committees was the Witch Hunts, which Resulted in many Deaths at the Hand of the Churches.
How Far Right are you Willing to Go, Griper? Do you believe in Anarchy? And what about Vigilance Committees? Certainly you do not Support some of the Stuff I just Mentioned.
BB,
there is no need to take exception. the reference to each is based upon the concept of the power of the individual in terms of their extremities. by one concept an individual only has total power over himself alone(anarchy). thus its opposite extremity is that an individual has total power over everyone else.(dictatorship).
i wasn't passing moral judgement on either.
another opposite, by wording, would be that one extremity would be that the People have total power over the individual. and its opposite extremity would be that the individual has total power over the people.
as for your comment in regards to the present day political system of Great Britain, i agree. the monarchs today are just symbolic tradition with the one exception of being the head of the State Religion which i am no expert on at the moment.
as for your comments of the poor being taxed i'd also agree with you even to the point that i'd say that they bear the burden most in any form of government either directly or indirectly.
you cannot place the burden of taxes upon the rich without first asking where they got the money they have to pay those taxes. and the answer is always from the poor in one way or another.
"as for your comments of the poor being taxed i'd also agree with you even to the point that i'd say that they bear the burden most in any form of government either directly or indirectly.
you cannot place the burden of taxes upon the rich without first asking where they got the money they have to pay those taxes. and the answer is always from the poor in one way or another."
...Sums it up, Griper..
guess I'll go light up my
pipe...and you 'n dawg kin take a stroll. :)
lista,
"How Far Right are you Willing to Go, Griper?"
my position is that i am willing to go as far right as the Constitution permits me to and no farther as long as that Constitution is justifiably enforcable.
if it no longer is justifiably enforcable as BB's remarks may imply then that causes me a problem. for then i would need to create an ideology of government to abide by.
and if that was so, i have a feeling that government spending along with this recssionary era of economics would play a big influence on that philosophy right now.
but know this, i would never go so far right as to be an anarchist. i recognize the need of a government for the people. the only question that i'd need to answer is what role it has in my life?
i know that my ideology will call for a restricted role. i also know that regardless of the restrictions someone may have to suffer the consequences of those restrictions. but that is inevitable with any ideology since all are imperfect.
Hi Griper,
First I'll Post what I Wrote in my Word Processor Yesterday and then I'll see if there are any Additional Thoughts.
As I was Reading Over my Last Comment to BB, I Realized that my Statement of "Whether the Left means Taking Care of People Depends on your Political Views." is what your Post is About. That is Whether the Government is Viewed as "Taking Care of People" (The Left, Government as a Servant), or as a "Tyrant Master" that Just Likes to Control People (The Right, Government as a Master)
Actually the Government is a Mixture of both and the Master Part of it is the Reason why there is a Balance of Powers.
"you cannot place the burden of taxes upon the rich without first asking where they got the money they have to pay those taxes and the answer is always from the poor in one way or another."
That is an Interesting Statement, Griper, and it could be Used in Support of Taxing the Risk in Order to Give back to the Poor what has been Taken.
Your Last Comment was the same sort of a Vague Answer that you are Famous for. Perhaps BB Understands better what you just Said than I do. You make me Feel Tired with your Vagueness, so I'll Tell you what. While BB Smokes his Pipe and you and Dawg go for a Stroll, I Think I'll Find Something else to do as well.
Well, since I Actually Wrote the Above Yesterday, I've already taken my Break from the Computer and therefore am still here.
I guess the Constitution Allows for all Sorts of Things and since Vigilance Committees Existed while the Constitution was in Effect, they might very Possibly not be Prohibited by the Constitution. Perhaps BB knows more about this Subject.
Another Thing that we should Consider is that the US Constitution was Written to Limit Federal Government, not State Government, and was not in any way Implying that there was not a lot more that could be Done on a Local Level.
Also, the Very Presence of the Right to Add Amendments was a Recognition that the way the Original Constitution was Written was Imperfect.
And yet another thing to Consider is that History did, In Fact, show Evidence of the Flaws in the Constitution, as Originally Written and that is why Amendments were Added.
Most Importantly, though, there were a lot of Negatives that Occurred when Vigilance Committees were Common Place.
I'm Glad to Know, though, that you do not Consider yourself an Anarchist.
"regardless of the restrictions, someone may have to suffer the consequences of those restrictions, but that is inevitable with any ideology since all are imperfect."
I guess the Real Question is which System is the Most Imperfect and Causes the Most Suffering Relative to the Others.
Returning to the Main Subject of the Post...
Rather the Government is Viewed as a Servant (Taking Care of People), or a Master (One who just wants to Control) will have an Effect on how Much Power and Control the People will be Willing to Submit to the Government.
Take a Minute Griper to also Apply this to Relationships, for if the Above is True, wouldn't it also be True that a Wife would Submit more to a Husband that she Views as a Servant Leader (One who Cares about her Feelings, what she Needs and even what she Wants), than to a Master (One who Only Desires to be in Control)? I would think that the Second Type would have Trouble even Persuading someone to Marry him.
All this is said Assuming that the Woman Accepts the Idea that the Man is the Head of the House in the First Place, yet I Only said that for the Benefit of any "Feminist" that might be Listening.
Post a Comment