Fight the Right.

[sweetnpetite]

.
I suppose it gives some comfort to bash America but the truth of the matter is that all civilizations did precisely the same.


The real heart of the matter is not Native Americans at all, it is part of that left wing mantra that hates mankind in general.

Gee. Amicus? Why would anyone hate mankind in general if every 'civilization' has all done evil unspeakable things?

Perhaps we on the left do not hate mankind in general. Perhaps we actually like mankind, but think it's time to stop making excuses for the worste in us by simply crying, "but it's human nature to rape, kill, torture, destroy, wage war..."

Is it not human nature to love? to want a better tomorrow? to protect?

If there is no good in human nature, then we *should* hate mankind in general. If there *is* good in human nature then we should seek out and strengthen that good and combat against the bad, rather than celebrate and glory in it.

why should we say that charity and love and cooperation are *not* human nature. but greed and violence and competion are?

It's justification for the worst of our behavior as the whole of our nature. It's quite rediculous when you take a look. It's unforgivable and unacceptable.

We don't 'hate mankind in general'- we just believe that we are capable of so much more. And we rufuse to give up on that belief. If we didn't believe that we were capable of so much more, perhaps it wouldn't make us so upset when we see mankind behaving so badly. We'd just say 'fuck it' and become mercinaries/capitalists.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Our civilization worked for us, whether you see it as uncivilized or not.

Perfect, consice, and absolutely true.

What other measure of a civilization could there or should there be?

 

[amicus]

SNPetite...."...Is it not human nature to love? to want a better tomorrow? to protect?

If there is no good in human nature, then we *should* hate mankind in general. If there *is* good in human nature then we should seek out and strengthen that good and combat against the bad, rather than celebrate and glory in it.

why should we say that charity and love and cooperation are *not* human nature. but greed and violence and competion are?..."


That statement is probably the nearest to agreement that you nad I have ever reached and thas a good thing.

However, one side of the political spectrum has always held that the use of force to achieve the 'good' in human nature is acceptable.

Whether it be through a dictatorship or theocracy or even a social democracy the use of police powers to force people to live a certain way is abhorrent to me and anyone who values human freedom.

Some will readily sacrifice individual human rights for the 'good of the whole', and I have read many times that you and your cohorts fully support that concept.

Yes, rational men will cooperative and mutually agree to set aside a portion of their wealth and time for mutual benefits, we all know that.

But you want people without children to support the education of all children because it will benefit society in general. I agree that it will, but I do not agree that you have a moral right to steal from those without children to support the system of mandatory public education.

That is just one not so small example of your political philosophy that I disagree with, there are many, many more.

At the very base of human rights are those pointed out in the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights that among those are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..."

When you advocate the ''control" of a man's life, you destroy his Liberty, his freedom and you eliminate the possiblity of him pursuing his own vision of Happiness.

I have seen you and others justify your incursions upon human liberty and freedom by saying that it is the 'right and proper' thing to do to steal a portion of my life and liberty for your benefit and for the benefit of the greater good.

I continue to disagree, you have no 'right' to any portion of my life regardless of how righteously 'moral' you think it is to provide public education, socialized medicine and tax supported libraries.

Education, healthcare, social security, books/knowledge; these are all good things when they are supported by choice and not tyranny.

You will never, ever comprehend that point, that you may not use force to achieve your desired goals.


amicus...

 

[Pure]

fantasyland

and here I thought the US public schools and libraries had been set up through a democratic process, by which the necessary funds were raised through taxes voted by elected representatives. and I thought there was widespread support for these schools and libraries, including the taxes involved.

turns out there's been something like a "tyranny"--a widespread and massive use of force of which few other than amicus are aware.

and the silly unenlightened people keep *voting* for it.

and believing it's a free country.

 

[amicus]

Somehow, I wrote and thought I posted a reply to Pure, that did not appear, I shall re iterate...

"...--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and here I thought the US public schools and libraries had been set up through a democratic process, by which the necessary funds were raised through taxes voted by elected representatives. and I thought there was widespread support for these schools and libraries, including the taxes involved..."

What Pure, and many others, do not seem to realize or comprehend, is that even if a majority, in a democratic process, votes to crucify Amicus, because he is an all around bad influence on society....you cannot do so.

Our guiding law and laws, come from the constitution. you cannot crucify me, even with majority approval, as you cannot confiscate the wealth of others, by majority vote, because to do so violates my and their constitutional rights.

A rational, constructive Supreme Court would overrule and abolish the laws made that authorize taxation for both public schools and libraries.

Which would be a good thing as the private market place would provide far superior educational opportunities, without the use of force, and far better library facilities, paid for by those who use those facilities...

But, I don't expect you to understand...not at all...


amicus...

 

[Liar]

Taxation and the free market.

Taxes is the rent you pay to live in a society. You may think the landlord charges too much, or that his business model of charging by ability is unsound, or that he spends too much on things the house doesn't need. But that doesn't change the bottom line. If you don't want to pay the rent, get out of the house. it's a free market, and you're free to seek out another landlord. But don't expect to find one welcoming you with open arms unless you're willing to play by the house rules.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Taxation and the free market.

Taxes is the rent you pay to live in a society. You may think the landlord charges too much, or that his business model of charging by ability is unsound, or that he spends too much on things the house doesn't need. But that doesn't change the bottom line. If you don't want to pay the rent, get out of the house. it's a free market, and you're free to seek out another landlord. But don't expect to find one welcoming you with open arms unless you're willing to play by the house rules.

True,

And some landlord's let you have a say as to what the house rules are. It doesn't mean that you always get your way, becuase you aren't the only person in the house.

Also, if you conider that *you* are the landlord (ie. that the people are the government)-- that is true too, but your not the only landlord by far. We all have a say, but that doesn't mean we each get everything we want.

 

[Pure]

amicus axiom and other confusions

pure said, //and here I thought the US public schools and libraries had been set up through a democratic process, by which the necessary funds were raised through taxes voted by elected representatives. and I thought there was widespread support for these schools and libraries, including the taxes involved..."//

ami] What Pure, and many others, do not seem to realize or comprehend, is that even if a majority, in a democratic process, votes to crucify Amicus, because he is an all around bad influence on society....you cannot do so.

Our guiding law and laws, come from the constitution. you cannot crucify me, even with majority approval, as you cannot confiscate the wealth of others, by majority vote, because to do so violates my and their constitutional rights.

it's taken me a while to see the core of Amicus position, which, of course has nothing to do with the US constitution (which clearly allows taxes and conpensated expropriations-- called 'confiscations' by Ami).

AMI's axiom: A government, like a voluntary gathering, may only do what's of immediate benefit to all.

in slightly different form "A government may only do what all the citizens agree on or would agree on."

It's a bit like a bunch of guys who decide to go drinking. They must agree on a particular bar. If all are assertive, no one can 'make' anyone go anywhere, so they must be unanimous. (if Joe Blow doesn't like the choice, he just won't go.)

Ami's objection has nothing to do with the federal government. If a bunch of persons incorporate a 'town' or form a colony, then they have some democratic process, possibly involving all, possibly involving representatives. Ami says, this town meeting (of all) simply may not vote for anything which all don't benefit from. In effect he's setting up a veto by anyone, calling for unamimity.

If some say, "let's build a school for the kids" and make a levy on everyone, what happens--in Ami wonderland-- is that those without children may not only vote against; they, in effect, block the process. Building the town school cannot go ahead based on 'confiscating' (taking taxes from) from those who don't benefit.

Ami, then, opposes 'public schools', not merely financed by the federal gov., but by any town! (despite any provisions of the town's enacted bylaws about the setting and raising of taxes; despite provision for the whole town to meet, or for a council of representatives to decide).

This is at the core of Rand's rather bizarre theory of government. It should all be like voluntary association.


We know, in fact, federal and state constitutions provide for votes (by majority) on taxes. so do town charters or bylaws. this is of no relevance to Ami:

He simply says, "Well, all governements are to some degree tyrannical, as Miss Rand shows. And She has revealed the alternative." Yes, one might say so.

But the reason is that almost all governments--outside of Quaker meetings--have to get things done, and use some kind of 'majority' or 'consensus' mechanism. All governements need to do things of benefit to a majority-- building schools being one example, taking place in VILLAGES throughout the world.

Again, with pie in the sky, Ami would say, "Let the schools be built voluntarily by those who want them. Let schools be financed voluntarily by those who believe they will benefit." Wouldn't that be less 'tyrranical' and 'confiscatory'--a Garden of Eden for liberty? A school then, is like the building desired as a headquarters by the local stamp club: If they want it, they pay for it.

It would be nice, Ami, is you simply admitted that none of the colonial charters, state constitutions, or the original US constitution operate as you think proper.

Correct? Yes or no.


(Maybe the nonexistent God revealed this to Miss Rand and you, only; the rest are deluded sheep. So be it.) Indeed, the British, French, Swedish, etc goverments AND all the city and town governments in these countries operate improperly-- they tyrannize and confiscate, in Ami's terms. Ami, your condemnation is even more sweeping than Al Qaeda's, of 'infidel' governments and corrupt Islamic ones.

As is clear from your posting, you reject democratic process --even where there's 99% agreement-- where, through it, a government tries to step beyond its proper sphere: doing what's of immediate benefit to all or what all can agree upon.

 

[thebullet]

Pure, sweetnpetite, Liar, Raphy, et all.

You are pissing into the wind. Your arguments are good ones, interesting for the normal person of almost any political/social persuasion to read.

But posing them to Amicus is the literary equivilent of hitting your head against a brick wall.

What's worse, you are merely feeding his ever growing arrogance. You aren't making it better, you are making it worse.

You might consider doing as I have done: put him on your ignore list. Then you won't be reading his childish rants in the guise pseudo-philosophy.

Eventually he'll be ranting to an audience of one. Perhaps then that over inflated ego will begin to deflate a bit.

That's a theory I'm working on.

 

[amicus]

How wunnerful to return to being called an idiot over and over again.

Pure...et al...I still cannot get you to justify the use of force to accomplish your stated goals.

You seem to think or believe, that the existence of a democratic process wherein people vote and choose representatives that gather, enables them to create laws that violate individual rights for the benefit of the majority.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States is an unique document, the existence of those two statements has fostered the growth of governments all over the world that adopted the principles contained therein.

Since the Constitution was accepted in 1789, it has been under constant attack by those like you who want to return to a former type of government where human rights were determined by majority rule of those in power.

People like me have fought you throughout the ages to retain both the spirit and the letter of that document.

I continue to defend the efficacy of that document and will always do so as I know that the individual human life and liberty, is the very basis upon which a rational civilization is built.

We have a House of Representatives newly chosen each two years drawn from the populace at large, on the basis of population.

We have a Senate, chosen on a regular basis by the vote of the people, with only two Senators from each State, regardless of population.

Those elected come from many walks of life; they come to the Nations Capitol and address the problems of the people at large.

They do so under rules and regulations and protocol, established at the inception of this nation.

In addition to the Congress, is an Executive Branch and a Judicial Branch.

Any law proposed and accepted in Congress is subject to being weighed against the Constitution

Those Senators and Representatives cannot approve legislation, make laws, that violate the individual rights and liberties set forth in the Constitution.

The Constitution and those 'self evident rights' are sacrosant and cannot be violated, sacrificed or lessened by legislation.

Congress cannot vote to approve a change in government that will violate the Constitution.

You seem to think and say and advocate that a majority can pass any law it wishes without regard to the Constitution.

You have fallen into a trap occupied by many: "The ends justify the means."

Your 'ends' of tax supported programs that provide you with your chosen, 'desirable' ends, cannot, under the Constitution, justify the use of force to confiscate the rights and possessions of the people.

The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbitor of what is 'legal' within the confines of the Constitution and what is 'illegal' or unconstitutional.

That is what America has always been about; the Constitutionally derived and protect rights of the individual to live in freedom from the control of others, to have the liberty to freely choose how to live that life and to pursue one's chosen happiness with equal rights under the law.

The Constitution can be and has been amended, but very rarely in the history of this nation and that according to strict requirements also included in that document.

It may seem to you that my political philosophy and that of Ayn Rand, are ancient concepts that no longer apply in the modern world.

You are wrong.




amicus...

 

[amicus]

The only defense of a truly bankrupt political philosophy is expressed by theBullet, quite well, "ignore the existence of reason and rationality and continue with the Utopian dreamers and group grope with your fellow travelers."

You will note, as you read the various posts, that not one single advocate will even attempt to justify the use of force as the means to an end of the 'greater good.'

Yet every altruistic, good for humanity plan you propose, involves just that, the use of force to take from some and give to others.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.


amicus...

 

[Pure]

Ami's tape, yada yada

Unfortunately, ami, you don't use words in their normal sense.

You hold that every local, state, and federal gov't is illegitimate *by your standards*. That, because they tax, which they enforce, which you want to call 'use of force.'

The original federal constitution taken with the BR [part of the original understanding, that there be a BR] clearly envisions appropriations for the public good, since Amendment V of the BR says,

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.



All state govs from the beginning had direct taxing powers.

The Fed gov legitimately (by constitutional procedures) acquired taxation powers in about 1920).

Yet every altruistic, good for humanity plan you propose, involves just that, the use of force to take from some and give to others.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Well, I'm in good company, since all the philosophers of the Enlightenment, John Locke, all the US 'founding fathers' and the founders of the modern British, French, etc. governments believed it was right for governments to tax for the 'good of society.'

Indeed, I think it could be shown that even Aristotle, the one philosopher approved of by Rand, also thought taxation for the public good to be quite all right.

Further it is a rational procedure.

Government is to further the public good, in prescribed, agreed ways, respecting 'rights' recognized as such.
Schools, for example, are part of that good.
Governments are authorized--through constitutions, charters, etc.-- to tax for the public good in prescribed ways, and respecting rights.
(Voluntary contribution schemes just don't seem to work.)

Taxes can't be voluntary, almost by def. They are enforced; if you don't pay your property tax to the city, eventually they serve you notice of eviction and of plans to exercize 'power of sale.'

That's the procedure. It's your last chance. (You have certain legal rights, e.g., to challenge the amounts claimed.) If you don't take it, you know what will follow, by the rules our society has agreed, rules which respect rights:

The city gov evicts you and sells your house for the taxes. (Though you've lost a piece of property, your other rights are intact, e.g., to live; the sheriff may not kill you during the eviction--Stalin style.)

Yup. That's force;

It's a [by-law]prescribed, democratically approved procedure to collect taxes. It's a procedure with safeguards, e.g., you may challenge the amount of the tax in courts. Those that stay in the city are thereby implicitly agreeing to the rules as described..

Ami, you have your (copied) vision of anarchic capitalism, Rand is your prophet. Your Utopia is without the 'force' involved in taxes, but of course allows [fails to prevent] the 'force' of landowners evicting peasants, factory owners locking out and/or firing workers, etc.

You might just admit it doesn't rest on the US constitution either in 1789, or now, or on any of the colonial charters or state constitutions (as they became) in that period.

Your vision is sort of like the child's dream of a world 'where no one ever has to do what they don't want to.' no tasks, chores, or duties. Find a remote island, and you can have your dream as long as there are no family responsibilities.

 

[amicus]

Pure....


I state again that the Constitution does obligate the government to provide some services, it also states that the government has the authority to levy taxes to fund those constitutionally mandated services.

Those services include the maintenance of a standing army to defend the sovreignty of the nation; a police force to protect the rights of the citizens and a court system to adjudicate rights and wrongs and misunderstandings.

The men who wrote our constitution wanted no part of an english or french or german styled monarchy nor did they wish an Italian type theocracy.

The entire spirit of the constitution was to limit the power of government, to establish two houses of congress, a judicial branch and an executive branch that was designed to be always in conflict to avoid a one party system.

The struggle has gone back and forth as time has moved on, with one side attempting to limit the power of government and the other attempting to expand it.

There has been an almost unbroken rule on one party, one philosophy since 1932 and the election of FDR.

For the first time in well over half a century, the 'other' party has gained a majority and is setting forth to put its own agenda in place.

I do not expect you to appreciate or support those efforts or even be comfortable with the changes. But you might have the good graces to limit your name calling now and then towards everything you disagree with.

I personally think justice would be served if the current party in power remains that way for an equal amount of time as the Left has.

Change is good, variety is the spice of life...there must be more lame cliche's I can approach you with....please wait while I search for them....


amicus...

 

[sweetnpetite]

The only defense of a truly bankrupt political philosophy is expressed by theBullet, quite well, "ignore the existence of reason and rationality and continue with the Utopian dreamers and group grope with your fellow travelers."

You will note, as you read the various posts, that not one single advocate will even attempt to justify the use of force as the means to an end of the 'greater good.'

Yet every altruistic, good for humanity plan you propose, involves just that, the use of force to take from some and give to others.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.


amicus...

I (and many others obviously) do indeed feel that the use of force is sometimes justified. You seem to assume that 'use of force' is somehow this most awful of awful things and no one could possibly disagree.

Ever see someone choking? Do you pat them softly on the back and whisper, "I hope you're ok?" NO- if you want to save their life, you have to use force.

If a man attacks you, do you beg for him to stop, or do you reply with equal or greater force in order to escape and prevent him from following (perhaps by breaking his knee caps, who knows)

Did you ever see a little movie called STAR WARS? The FORCE has a dark side and a light side; good and bad. Come over from the dark side amicus. Over here on the side of good, we have better cookies .

ps. please save yourself a headache and note were I am using humor to make a point- but don't think that my point isn't a serious one. Not all use of force is bad or objectionable. Neither do I think it is wrong to take from those who have more than they need to give to those who have less than they need. Indeed, I think that it is wrong to keep more than you need and selfishly let others go without. If man can not act on his decent impulses, then force may be required. MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU.

 

[thebullet]

Amicus said:
The only defense of a truly bankrupt political philosophy is expressed by theBullet, quite well, "ignore the existence of reason and rationality and continue with the Utopian dreamers and group grope with your fellow travelers."

Hey, Ami, you must be thinking of someone else. I don't remember ever saying that.

Crap, I don't even know what it means.

 

[amicus]

sweetnpetite said in part: "...ps. please save yourself a headache and note were I am using humor to make a point- but don't think that my point isn't a serious one. Not all use of force is bad or objectionable. Neither do I think it is wrong to take from those who have more than they need to give to those who have less than they need. Indeed, I think that it is wrong to keep more than you need and selfishly let others go without. If man can not act on his decent impulses, then force may be required. MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU.

..."

Of course I would agree that the use of force to defend or protect an innocent life from aggression or danger is moral and logical.

But the use of force to 'take' from those who 'have' and give to those that 'need', is a sick moral philosophy.

and you know it


amicus..

 

[~hellbaby~]

Hey, Ami, you must be thinking of someone else. I don't remember ever saying that.

Crap, I don't even know what it means.

I thought you were ignoring him

 

[Pure]

same old

ami said,

Pure....
I state again that the Constitution does obligate the government to provide some services, it also states that the government has the authority to levy taxes to fund those constitutionally mandated services.

There is no reason to think that the services are limited to those enumerated in the constitution, provided states' rights are not infringed.

But, you ignore the basic problem. Towns in the colonies and in the US afterwards levied taxes. The usual procedure was, according to bylaws, have a majority vote.

You hold that even town governments, as described, are NOT legitimate in that they 'steal' and 'use force.' Your position has nothing special to do with the federal gov or constitution.

One would call you an 'anarchist utopian' if you were sincere. But you have no problem with Republican 'national security' state or imperial policies for far away wars (which have to be supported with taxes you hate). So I have to assume all the freedom and reason talk you picked up from Rand et al is just blather.

 

[Pure]

A simple question about Amicus standard of 'no force' except for the benefit of all

Ami says taxation of all for the benefit of a majority (and to the disadvantage of a minority, in that they are *forced* to pay) is always wrong, tyrannical, even when the legal procedures are followed by any government. The example was public school taxes.

So then I ask, Do you think the proceedings of all town and villages operating in the US ,since the colonies, are illegitimate, in relation to having some project (of benefit to most) and taxing for it (on a compulsory basis)? An example might be, a school for the town. One may have, according to bylaws and rules of incorporation, a vote by all who attend a meeting, or a vote by representatives (like aldermen).

Assuming collecting taxes is equated to force, isn't a requirement for virtual unanimity in a government--e.g. a town-- unrealistic? (I'm assuming that everyone votes according to his/her direct interest; so if ONE person does not directly benefit, s/he votes no. ) It looks that way.

THUS, I might vote for lights on the town's main streets, since i go there; but I would NOT vote to spend my hard-earned cash for lighting a sidestreet in a neighborhood that I never go to. So lighting the town's center streets--financed through a general tax-- *might be legitimate.

BUT can see that even 'lights on the main streets in the center of town' might be an illegitimate project according to amicus.

One citizen says "I never go downtown. Nor any of my family. I have *nothing* at stake in the matter, so I vote *against* being taxed to support such a lighting scheme." Amicus' approach renders that objection valid, and labels the decision to tax, anyway, as illegitimate, tyrranical, trampling on rights, etc.

Presumably Amicus has to say--let each neighborhood in which *everyone* wants street lighting, vote for that money to be levied. That is legitimate. So if neighborhood votes for neighborhood lighting (financed by taxing the neighborhood), that *might be legitimate

BUT even then it might not work, by Amicus' standards:

Suppose one person says, "OK, fifty bucks (fixed amount) from each homeowner, for the neighborhood street lights." Someone else says, "No, your home fronts on half a block, 150 feet. My little propery have only 20 feet of street frontage. I propose: Each 'owner' should pay proportionately either by 'frontage', or {more or less the same} 1% of the value of his property.

We might suppose that the proportional-scheme folks will vote down the 'fixed amount' persons.

NOTICE that at that point, the 'fixed amount' people can employ amicus' objections: "You can't take any more than a fixed amount from me. That would require force, since I don't approve of any 'proportional' scheme. It is irrational and tyrranical to collect a proportional amount, even when majority approved according to the bylaws of the town."

So, in this lighting example, both the 'fixed amount' and the 'proportional amount' schemes could well fail (to be legitimate), by amicus' standard. Even where projects benefit all, amicus scheme may make raising money through taxes, impossible. In effect there has to be unaminity on the METHOD of taxing, not just the desirability of the project.

 

[thebullet]

Oh, come on, Pure. Don't fall for that old ploy - trying to convince Amicus using logic. Logic has no place in the ami-world. If it doesn't fit his utopian vision of hell, then it doesn't exist.


~hellbaby~ I always ignore Amicus. He's on my ignore list because I can't take the time to read his stilted arguments, and they just take up space on my monitor. But, I did see my name included in a quote from Amicus on a Sweetnpetite post.

To paraphrase Neil Young when asked about his name being ridiculed in the Lynyrd Skynyrd song "Sweet Home Alabama", any post that uses my name is a great one.

Just because I don't agree with Ami's point of view, doesn't mean I'm not perfectly happy to see all the other people verbally joust with him. It is similar to jousting with windmills and equally frustrating. Since I have ceased arguing with Ami, I find that my feelings towards him are quite amicable.

 

[~hellbaby~]

Oh, come on, Pure. Don't fall for that old ploy - trying to convince Amicus using logic. Logic has no place in the ami-world. If it doesn't fit his utopian vision of hell, then it doesn't exist.


~hellbaby~ I always ignore Amicus. He's on my ignore list because I can't take the time to read his stilted arguments, and they just take up space on my monitor. But, I did see my name included in a quote from Amicus on a Sweetnpetite post.

To paraphrase Neil Young when asked about his name being ridiculed in the Lynyrd Skynyrd song "Sweet Home Alabama", any post that uses my name is a great one.

Just because I don't agree with Ami's point of view, doesn't mean I'm not perfectly happy to see all the other people verbally joust with him. It is similar to jousting with windmills and equally frustrating. Since I have ceased arguing with Ami, I find that my feelings towards him are quite amicable.

So Ami and Pure aren't the same person afterall?