Customize

PJ Media: 8 Reasons Why Today's Occupiers Are Tomorrow's Tea Partiers

Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by moarxenu, Apr 27, 2012.

  1. adhocrat Member

    I'm sure you've read these words before.
    Now, tell me again where the government derives their right to aggress against others?
    The constitution says the government derives their power from us. So if we don't have a particular right, then the government can't derive the right from the people.

    I have the right to self defense, which I can then give to the government to protect me. I can't hurt another person, therefore I cannot give that right to the government, because I never possessed the right in the first place.

    I asked before, give me an example where it is moral to initiate the use of force.

    Otherwise, I declare victory since you can't justify your premise
  2. failboat Member

    No, it says it derives its just powers from our CONSENT, not from our rights. This isn't meant to be a dig at you, but the object of the preposition "from," is clearly the word "consent."

    You consent to give those powers when you vote.

    And it was never my premise that it is moral to initiate the use of force, although I did give you a few examples. We're arguing about dictatorships, remember?

    Since you demanded an example, I've come up with one. The initiation of the use of force is moral not simply for self defense, but also to defend the defenseless against unjust aggression. That is not self defense; it is moral to defend a defenseless people abroad who are suffering unjust, violent aggression. I want to live in a country whose duly elected representatives in government have that power, if they choose to exercise it. It is just as I have the power to use lethal force to defend an innocent person- not myself - who is about to be murdered. At the same time, I have no responsibility to put myself in harm's way, if I choose not to - and the government is the same.
  3. adhocrat Member

    I didn't see any examples of the just use of the initiation of force. Could you please remind what they are?

    You are arguing about dictatorships, I am talking about the immorality of government, the one that doesn't give a fig about consent. If they actually cared about the consent of the governed, then the bailout would never have happened. Since people, the people whose consent is required, overwhelming said "Don't do it" and since the government then did it, I don't see where consent played any part of the issue, only people with power exercising said power in open defiance of the will of the people.

    that is not what I would call a responsive system. In fact, I would call that an unresponsive system, one not caring about the consent of the governed.
  4. failboat Member

    So far you've lost on these arguments:

    -the government derives its powers from the people's consent, not from the people's rights.
    -the government is a democracy, not a dictatorship
    -the initiation of the use of force can be moral in cases other than self defense; it can be moral when defending others.

    Feel free to walk away at any time.

    You'll need to provide dox that people overwhelmingly were against the bailout, and that they continue to be. The acts of even a democratic, representative government don't always need to conform to the will of the people in the short term, if those acts are better for the welfare of the people in the long term. The last time I checked, GM, Ford, and Chrysler were all still alive, whereas without the bailout, we would've lost most of the American motor industry.

    We can't live in a perfect world. Difficult situations do arise where no possible course of action is well-liked, and it would be folly to expect democratic governments to always make popular decisions. They have the consent of the people because they were elected by the people, not because it was ordained that democratic leaders must always make popular decisions.
  5. PresidentShaw Member

    This thread is case in point of this post ^

    lol irony
  6. adhocrat Member

    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 these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.



    Those unalienable rights are what we have to give, Nothing else. The consent we give is for the government to protect those rights. You are saying the government can violate the rights that are 'unalienable'
    That makes no sense.
    http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/26/business/fi-voxpop26
    I'm sure research would provide similar stories from other reps.
    Obama fired the CEO of GM. That is fascism. By definition, that is fascism. So sorry, what you are saying is that some bureaucrat knows better than anyone else what is right for the people.
    A bankrupt firm should be allowed to go bankrupt. The factory still exists, the workers still exist, the only difference would be a new name and a new labor contract, which was what the bailout avoided. Bankruptcy would have forced the unions to renegotiate new contracts.
    I don't expect to live in a perfect world.

    I do not want a world where one person or small group of people can make mistakes and force others to pay for them. That is what your scenario does.
    The mistakes of our politicians are paid for by all of us. If the mistakes of the politicians were paid by the politicians, then there wouldn't be a problem. SO, if the politicians wants to go to war, let him take a sword, find the enemy and engage him. But to draft others to do his fighting is to externalize the costs of his aggression.
  7. failboat Member

    Your premise is flawed.

    You've already conceded that the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war on foreign nations, a power that the people do not have individually. Congress and the government are given many powers under the Constitution that people do not have individually - raising armies, levying taxes, regulating commerce, immigration, bankruptcy, copyright, and so on. We give Government our Consent to the Powers of the Constitution by Electing it.

    Some unalienable rights are forfeit upon the commission of crimes; some are forfeit for dangerous enemies of the state. I shouldn't have to explain that to you.

    If the firing of a CEO incenses you, then the breakup of Standard Oil must have really upset you. The government has the power to regulate interstate commerce and bankruptcy. Please provide dox that it was Obama himself who "signed the pinkslip," so to speak, and not a collusion of him and Congress and the Fed. I thought it was conditional of the receipt of the bailout package - if the government bails out a company with the people's money, it can make demands on that company that the government thinks would be to the welfare of the people. GM's CEO had led it into bankruptcy. Hello? Having him leave would be smart for the people's money. Making conditions on a loan is not fascism; it's a matter of financial policy. Bankers are not fascists.

    Once again:
    Constitution, Article I, section 8, clause 11; and Article II, section 2.

    Part of government's responsibility is to raise armies, and that has been enshrined in the Constitution from the very beginning. I should add that the US hasn't had a draft since Vietnam, and fields an all-volunteer force. If the politician's constituents don't want war, and don't want to risk even the possibility of being drafted if the draft should be reinstated, they can vote him out of office.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins