Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 64 of 64

Thread: How do you define the state? Does *it* actually exist?

  1. #61 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    61,320
    Thanks
    7,144
    Thanked 8,821 Times in 6,166 Posts
    Groans
    5,805
    Groaned 1,532 Times in 1,444 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ironhead View Post
    I didn't realize you were present when your state's constitution was formed as well as when the Federal constitution was written? I know that I was not there and did not give my consent. I certainly don't consent to many, many things the US government does, such as waging wars and violating property rights.
    James Madison once made a response to Jefferson, who made a claim along simialar lines, that I believe adequately adresses your point:

    James Madison to Thomas Jefferson
    4 Feb. 1790Papers 13:18--21 Your favor of the 9th. of Jany. inclosing one of Sepr. last did not get to hand till a few days ago. The idea which the latter evolves is a great one, and suggests many interesting reflections to legislators; particularly when contracting and providing for public debts. Whether it can be received in the extent your reasonings give it, is a question which I ought to turn more in my thoughts than I have yet been able to do, before I should be justified in making up a full opinion on it. My first thoughts though coinciding with many of yours, lead me to view the doctrine as not in all respects compatible with the course of human affairs. I will endeavor to sketch the grounds of my skepticism.


    "As the earth belongs to the living, not to the dead, a living generation can bind itself only: In every society the will of the majority binds the whole: According to the laws of mortality, a majority of those ripe at any moment for the exercise of their will do not live beyond nineteen years: To that term then is limited the validity of every act of the Society: Nor within that limitation, can any declaration of the public will be valid which is not express."


    This I understand to be the outline of the argument.
    The Acts of a political Society may be divided into three classes.
    1. The fundamental Constitution of the Government.
    2. Laws involving stipulations which render them irrevocable at the will of the Legislature
    3. Laws involving no such irrevocable quality.


    However applicable in Theory the doctrine may be to a Constitution, in [sic] seems liable in practice to some very powerful objections. Would not a Government so often revised become too mutable to retain those prejudices in its favor which antiquity inspires, and which are perhaps a salutary aid to the most rational Government in the most enlightened age? Would not such a periodical revision engender pernicious factions that might not otherwise come into existence? Would not, in fine, a Government depending for its existence beyond a fixed date, on some positive and authentic intervention of the Society itself, be too subject to the casualty and consequences of an actual interregnum?


    In the 2d. class, exceptions at least to the doctrine seem to be requisite both in Theory and practice.


    If the earth be the gift of nature to the living their title can extend to the earth in its natural State only. The improvements made by the dead form a charge against the living who take the benefit of them. This charge can no otherwise be satisfyed than by executing the will of the dead accompanying the improvements.


    Debts may be incurred for purposes which interest the unborn, as well as the living: such are debts for repelling a conquest, the evils of which descend through many generations. Debts may even be incurred principally for the benefit of posterity: such perhaps is the present debt of the U. States, which far exceeds any burdens which the present generation could well apprehend for itself. The term of 19 years might not be sufficient for discharging the debts in either of these cases.


    There seems then to be a foundation in the nature of things, in the relation which one generation bears to another, for the descent of obligations from one to another. Equity requires it. Mutual good is promoted by it. All that is indispensable in adjusting the account between the dead & the living is to see that the debits against the latter do not exceed the advances made by the former. Few of the incumbrances entailed on Nations would bear a liquidation even on this principle.


    The objections to the doctrine as applied to the 3d. class of acts may perhaps be merely practical. But in that view they appear to be of great force.


    Unless such laws should be kept in force by new acts regularly anticipating the end of the term, all the rights depending on positive laws, that is, most of the rights of property would become absolutely defunct; and the most violent struggles be generated between those interested in reviving and those interested in new-modelling the former State of property. Nor would events of this kind be improbable. The obstacles to the passage of laws which render a power to repeal inferior to an opportunity of rejecting, as a security agst. oppression, would here render an opportunity of rejecting, an insecure provision agst. anarchy. Add, that the possibility of an event so hazardous to the rights of property could not fail to depreciate its value; that the approach of the crisis would increase this effect; that the frequent return of periods superseding all the obligations depending on antecedent laws & usages, must by weak[en]ing the reverence for those obligations, co-operate with motives to licentiousness already too powerful; and that the uncertainty incident to such a state of things would on one side discourage the steady exertions of industry produced by permanent laws, and on the other, give a disproportionate advantage to the more, over the less, sagacious and interprizing part of the Society.


    I find no relief from these consequences, but in the received doctrine that a tacit assent may be given to established Constitutions and laws, and that this assent may be inferred, where no positive dissent appears. It seems less impracticable to remedy, by wise plans of Government, the dangerous operation of this doctrine, than to find a remedy for the difficulties inseparable from the other.
    May it not be questioned whether it be possible to exclude wholly the idea of tacit assent, without subverting the foundation of civil Society? On what principle does the voice of the majority bind the minority? It does not result I conceive from the law of nature, but from compact founded on conveniency. A greater proportion might be required by the fundamental constitution of a Society, if it were judged eligible. Prior then to the establishment of this principle, unanimity was necessary; and strict Theory at all times presupposses the assent of every member to the establishment of the rule itself. If this assent can not be given tacitly, or be not implied where no positive evidence forbids, persons born in Society would not on attaining ripe age be bound by acts of the Majority; and either a unanimous repetition of every law would be necessary on the accession of new members, or an express assent must be obtained from these to the rule by which the voice of the Majority is made the voice of the whole.


    If the observations I have hazarded be not misapplied, it follows that a limitation of the validity of national acts to the computed life of a nation, is in some instances not required by Theory, and in others cannot be accomodated to practice. The observations are not meant however to impeach either the utility of the principle in some particular cases; or the general importance of it in the eye of the philosophical Legislator. On the contrary it would give me singular pleasure to see it first announced in the proceedings of the U. States, and always kept in their view, as a salutary curb on the living generation from imposing unjust or unnecessary burdens on their successors. But this is a pleasure which I have little hope of enjoying. The spirit of philosophical legislation has never reached some parts of the Union, and is by no means the fashion here, either within or without Congress. The evils suffered & feared from weakness in Government, and licentiousness in the people, have turned the attention more towards the means of strengthening the former, than of narrowing its extent in the minds of the latter. Besides this, it is so much easier to espy the little difficulties immediately incident to every great plan, than to comprehend its general and remote benefits, that our hemisphere must be still more enlightened before many of the sublime truths which are seen thro' the medium of Philosophy, become visible to the naked eye of the ordinary Politician.
    "Do not think that I came to bring peace... I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34

  2. #62 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    344
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
    I've been reading through your stupidity, and the conclusion I come to is, you favor us being governed by 'philosophy.' Now, we might be able to pull that off, if two things were possible... First, if we all individually held the same philosophical beliefs and understood that to be the universal case... we don't, and we won't ever. And second, if Plato or Aristotle were still alive to be our ruler and leader... but they are not. So what we have instead, is your boneheaded ass, pontificating about shit you have little understanding of, cynically telling us that we need to all abandon our own ideas and thoughts and think like you, an abject idiot. I don't think we can agree to run society like that, and not sure that it's something we want to try. ...But good luck with it!
    Ah, same old Dixie, always at least a modicum of intelligence but plenty of ad hominems to give it a much larger helping of atavism. Oh, and a juicy strawman argument, to boot.

    I never said you "should think like I do," but rather am making an argument from first principles, not from effect. But don't bother with that, logic, consistency, and morality are only for "abject idiots," eh? I still haven't seen anyone make a rational counter argument from first principles - I am always open to that. Can you say the same?

    You think your model is working? LOL - take another look, genius, you might notice that massive debt pile over there. It's not just happening in the good 'ol US of A, if you haven't noticed. Do you honestly fucking believe that someone will be elected, other than Ron Paul (who probably won't be), and will even attempt to substantively reduce the size of government? The default and collapse are inevitable - and all of the ass clowns you listen to on television are going to blame the market, like the good socialists they are, when the finger should be pointed squarely at the state.

  3. #63 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    344
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KissingCommies View Post
    James Madison once made a response to Jefferson, who made a claim along simialar lines, that I believe adequately adresses your point:

    James Madison to Thomas Jefferson
    4 Feb. 1790Papers 13:18--21 Your favor of the 9th. of Jany. inclosing one of Sepr. last did not get to hand till a few days ago. The idea which the latter evolves is a great one, and suggests many interesting reflections to legislators; particularly when contracting and providing for public debts. Whether it can be received in the extent your reasonings give it, is a question which I ought to turn more in my thoughts than I have yet been able to do, before I should be justified in making up a full opinion on it. My first thoughts though coinciding with many of yours, lead me to view the doctrine as not in all respects compatible with the course of human affairs. I will endeavor to sketch the grounds of my skepticism.


    "As the earth belongs to the living, not to the dead, a living generation can bind itself only: In every society the will of the majority binds the whole: According to the laws of mortality, a majority of those ripe at any moment for the exercise of their will do not live beyond nineteen years: To that term then is limited the validity of every act of the Society: Nor within that limitation, can any declaration of the public will be valid which is not express."


    This I understand to be the outline of the argument.
    The Acts of a political Society may be divided into three classes.
    1. The fundamental Constitution of the Government.
    2. Laws involving stipulations which render them irrevocable at the will of the Legislature
    3. Laws involving no such irrevocable quality.


    However applicable in Theory the doctrine may be to a Constitution, in [sic] seems liable in practice to some very powerful objections. Would not a Government so often revised become too mutable to retain those prejudices in its favor which antiquity inspires, and which are perhaps a salutary aid to the most rational Government in the most enlightened age? Would not such a periodical revision engender pernicious factions that might not otherwise come into existence? Would not, in fine, a Government depending for its existence beyond a fixed date, on some positive and authentic intervention of the Society itself, be too subject to the casualty and consequences of an actual interregnum?


    In the 2d. class, exceptions at least to the doctrine seem to be requisite both in Theory and practice.


    If the earth be the gift of nature to the living their title can extend to the earth in its natural State only. The improvements made by the dead form a charge against the living who take the benefit of them. This charge can no otherwise be satisfyed than by executing the will of the dead accompanying the improvements.


    Debts may be incurred for purposes which interest the unborn, as well as the living: such are debts for repelling a conquest, the evils of which descend through many generations. Debts may even be incurred principally for the benefit of posterity: such perhaps is the present debt of the U. States, which far exceeds any burdens which the present generation could well apprehend for itself. The term of 19 years might not be sufficient for discharging the debts in either of these cases.


    There seems then to be a foundation in the nature of things, in the relation which one generation bears to another, for the descent of obligations from one to another. Equity requires it. Mutual good is promoted by it. All that is indispensable in adjusting the account between the dead & the living is to see that the debits against the latter do not exceed the advances made by the former. Few of the incumbrances entailed on Nations would bear a liquidation even on this principle.


    The objections to the doctrine as applied to the 3d. class of acts may perhaps be merely practical. But in that view they appear to be of great force.


    Unless such laws should be kept in force by new acts regularly anticipating the end of the term, all the rights depending on positive laws, that is, most of the rights of property would become absolutely defunct; and the most violent struggles be generated between those interested in reviving and those interested in new-modelling the former State of property. Nor would events of this kind be improbable. The obstacles to the passage of laws which render a power to repeal inferior to an opportunity of rejecting, as a security agst. oppression, would here render an opportunity of rejecting, an insecure provision agst. anarchy. Add, that the possibility of an event so hazardous to the rights of property could not fail to depreciate its value; that the approach of the crisis would increase this effect; that the frequent return of periods superseding all the obligations depending on antecedent laws & usages, must by weak[en]ing the reverence for those obligations, co-operate with motives to licentiousness already too powerful; and that the uncertainty incident to such a state of things would on one side discourage the steady exertions of industry produced by permanent laws, and on the other, give a disproportionate advantage to the more, over the less, sagacious and interprizing part of the Society.


    I find no relief from these consequences, but in the received doctrine that a tacit assent may be given to established Constitutions and laws, and that this assent may be inferred, where no positive dissent appears. It seems less impracticable to remedy, by wise plans of Government, the dangerous operation of this doctrine, than to find a remedy for the difficulties inseparable from the other.
    May it not be questioned whether it be possible to exclude wholly the idea of tacit assent, without subverting the foundation of civil Society? On what principle does the voice of the majority bind the minority? It does not result I conceive from the law of nature, but from compact founded on conveniency. A greater proportion might be required by the fundamental constitution of a Society, if it were judged eligible. Prior then to the establishment of this principle, unanimity was necessary; and strict Theory at all times presupposses the assent of every member to the establishment of the rule itself. If this assent can not be given tacitly, or be not implied where no positive evidence forbids, persons born in Society would not on attaining ripe age be bound by acts of the Majority; and either a unanimous repetition of every law would be necessary on the accession of new members, or an express assent must be obtained from these to the rule by which the voice of the Majority is made the voice of the whole.


    If the observations I have hazarded be not misapplied, it follows that a limitation of the validity of national acts to the computed life of a nation, is in some instances not required by Theory, and in others cannot be accomodated to practice. The observations are not meant however to impeach either the utility of the principle in some particular cases; or the general importance of it in the eye of the philosophical Legislator. On the contrary it would give me singular pleasure to see it first announced in the proceedings of the U. States, and always kept in their view, as a salutary curb on the living generation from imposing unjust or unnecessary burdens on their successors. But this is a pleasure which I have little hope of enjoying. The spirit of philosophical legislation has never reached some parts of the Union, and is by no means the fashion here, either within or without Congress. The evils suffered & feared from weakness in Government, and licentiousness in the people, have turned the attention more towards the means of strengthening the former, than of narrowing its extent in the minds of the latter. Besides this, it is so much easier to espy the little difficulties immediately incident to every great plan, than to comprehend its general and remote benefits, that our hemisphere must be still more enlightened before many of the sublime truths which are seen thro' the medium of Philosophy, become visible to the naked eye of the ordinary Politician.
    Madison made a fine argument from effect, but not actually from first principles. Also, unlike Jefferson, I am not making an argument for government.

  4. #64 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    24,050
    Thanks
    765
    Thanked 1,120 Times in 940 Posts
    Groans
    818
    Groaned 1,063 Times in 960 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ironhead View Post
    Ah, same old Dixie, always at least a modicum of intelligence but plenty of ad hominems to give it a much larger helping of atavism. Oh, and a juicy strawman argument, to boot.

    I never said you "should think like I do," but rather am making an argument from first principles, not from effect. But don't bother with that, logic, consistency, and morality are only for "abject idiots," eh? I still haven't seen anyone make a rational counter argument from first principles - I am always open to that. Can you say the same?

    You think your model is working? LOL - take another look, genius, you might notice that massive debt pile over there. It's not just happening in the good 'ol US of A, if you haven't noticed. Do you honestly fucking believe that someone will be elected, other than Ron Paul (who probably won't be), and will even attempt to substantively reduce the size of government? The default and collapse are inevitable - and all of the ass clowns you listen to on television are going to blame the market, like the good socialists they are, when the finger should be pointed squarely at the state.
    You are making an argument from a philosophical viewpoint with no tangible resolve. You reject the first principles of representative democracy, which our nation was founded on. To me, that is 'abject idiocy' because our particular form of government with our particular Constitution, has been the most successful since the dawn of human civilization. When you examine what this country has accomplished on its own, over the past 200+ years, it's hard to argue that it hasn't been successful or hasn't worked. Only an 'abject idiot' would draw such a conclusion... that's not an ad-hom, just an honest evaluation.

    I DO notice the massive debt pile! I have been screaming with my hair on fire about this for some time now. I DO realize government has gotten too big! I have been screaming about this as well. I have not abandoned the principles of our government, or concluded our governmental system is flawed, because I don't believe that. I believe THE PEOPLE are responsible for this, NOT "The Government!"

    I'll correct you on one point, you say that Ron Paul "probably won't be elected president" and I can assure you, this is a certainty, not simply a probability. Ron Paul's viewpoints on the size and scope of government are just about in line with my own, it's one of the things that I really do like about Paul. The problem with Ron is, he has no clue about foreign policy. There are times when we have to use our military to protect our interests, and we can't simply ignore the rest of the world and become isolationists, we've tried that before and it resulted in two world wars, hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers, and trillions of dollars in wealth. If we have to dispatch a few platoons of foot soldiers, or launch a few missiles, it's regrettable and unfortunate, but it's still better than the alternative. If we have to go in and topple a rogue dictator now and then, it is preferable to allowing them to grow into an almost unstoppable force, THEN trying to stop them. Radical Islamic extremists are growing and multiplying in the middle east, and we are the only force on the planet with the ability to stop them. Their objective is to either convert everyone to Islam or kill them, so we simply can't allow that. The question becomes, what can we do about it? Ron's approach, like the Liberal's approach, is to do nothing and ignore the situation, but this is not acceptable.

    I'll wrap this up by pointing out, you have given us no alternative. You want to criticize what we have now, and claim it is a 'figment of imagination' or whatever, but you don't ever articulate what you want to replace it with. This is why I conclude, you wish to be governed by "philosophy" and I just don't think that option is possible, and I stated why. Now, if you actually HAVE some idea of what kind of government we should have, you need to spell it out here, so we can evaluate it in comparison to what we currently have, and what has been working for the past 200+ years. Simply pontificating on how flawed you think government is, doesn't solve our problem.

Similar Threads

  1. Define a 'Liberal' or a 'Conservative'
    By /MSG/ in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 923
    Last Post: 10-17-2011, 08:42 AM
  2. Define Troll
    By Rune in forum Introductions, User Announcements, Suggestions and General Board Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-30-2011, 08:16 PM
  3. Calling BAC Out: Define Landslide
    By BRUTALITOPS in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-15-2008, 07:33 AM
  4. Associations don't define a candidate?
    By Canceled.LTroll.29 in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-14-2008, 03:37 PM
  5. Define a Moderate on the issues
    By BRUTALITOPS in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 09-05-2006, 12:36 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •