Did we pick the right founding fathers?

Great Debates
81

Not a problem. Have fun.

82

2sense:

1. Centralized Control:

Examples from business are relevant, but not solely based on economics. Think about information systems. Centralized control requires information on the “problem” to travel up the hierarchy to decision-makers. Then the decisions have to travel down the hierarchy to the people affected. Not only does this make the process slower, it makes errors in information transfer more likely.

How can central authority be more flexible than distributed authority? Sure, a strong centralized government can quickly make far-reaching laws, but is this flexible and responsive? In particular, do you think it is realistic to expect this central authority to have any real understanding of the “problems” they are attempting to solve?

This is impressive: You want a strong, flexible, centralized government, and expect it to not be overly complex? How will you achieve this?

You can also “disenfranchise” people by holding votes on issues they don’t care about. The simple fact is, most people do not care about large areas of government activity, and so tend to ignore them. Your strong government will have its hands into everything from agriculture to the Internet to baby formula. You really think citizens are going to have the time or interest to monitor all these activities? How will citizens be sure that the government knows they’re feelings on all the details of these issues?

Also, you are claiming that citizens are losing their voice because of “cutting government up into small pieces”. I am unconvinced of this: The government is not cut up into small pieces–it is divided into three branches. Also, I believe that failure of citizens to participate is a result of factors other than this separation. If you want to argue based on this notion, you are going to have to convince me.

I don’t see this. Individual legislators and officials pass the buck to political opponents, often within the same branch of government. Thus, Senator GoodGuy has been foiled in his efforts to “protect Social Security” by the evil Republicans. Meanwhile, Senator Spendthrift is bemoaning how he is trying to save taxpayers’ money, but the bleeding-heart Democrats are determined to give it all away. This is not because the government has been segmented, but because the government is representative (and is rooted in the power of two political parties). Do you intend to recommend a non-representative form of government? If not, then on what basis do you claim that this legislative tendency will be corrected?

For example, what if I am convinced that the Senator from Tennessee is to blame for the problems that I am experiencing in Alabama. Needless to say, I would like to see him lose his position. As it turns out, though, he has been critical in passing laws that Tennessee residents love, so they all intend to re-elect him. Are you suggesting that your system somehow solves this problem?

  1. You concede that “there will always be abuses”. I submit that, the more power you place in governmental hands, the more flagrant these abuses will become, and the more potentially catastrophic the results.
  2. On what basis do you conclude that government activity is hard to see? You can find out, relatively easily, pretty much everything the bastards are up to. The problem is, there is so much activity, you couldn’t keep track of it all if you were receiving a personal daily briefing. With your stronger, more centralized government, there’s going to be even more going on–who’s going to even try to keep up with it all?
  3. I am still unconvinced that increasing power eliminates the ability to pass blame, as discussed above.

You’ve been skirting this issue: What is “upright” and “correct”? What if you define it differently than I do? What if I’m in the majority? How much power do you want my vote to have?
2. Voice of The People:

Sounds good, but I have never seen it happen. How often do you see people or legislators repeal a bad law? No, instead, they try to fix it–modify it here, adjust it there, make an exception for purple people.

Even worse, though: How do you know what is a bad law? I say that laws criminalizing drug use are bad and they lead to increased violence. How many people do you expect to agree with me? I also say that gun control laws are generally bad and tend to decrease the general safety of the populace. Not getting much support on this front either.

Still, you think that bad laws are the result of lack of “voice” by the people and lack of accountability in government. I think you have an implicit assumption that you will agree with the “voice” of the people every time it speaks. Unfortunately, I don’t know enough about you to offer a personalized example. However, visions of World War II are dancing though my head. You do know that, originally, Hilter achieved power through election, right? The government was strong enough in Germany that he was able to use his power to abolish the democratic process and eliminate his political enemies. And yet, you persist in this “strong government is good government” rhetoric.

You’re kidding, right?

I am a white male. If we have a vote and decide that that black people should be treated as property and may be owned by white people, would you argue that this was against my self-interests? I’m not talking about whether it would be moral or correct, but surely you can’t deny that I would be better off. And yes, this is an extreme example, but it applies in all decisions where the majority rules. And no, I don’t expect people to “compromise in advance” of the notion that they may be part of a future minority.

Once again, your logic seems internally inconsistent to me. You say that people will violate the rights of others, if they feel they can get away with it. Yet, you want to give more power to a relatively small group of people (the government), and have them subject only to the will of the majority. You also are presenting issues as very black and white, which they tend not to be. Let’s say Windbag A has been in office for two years and has done 3 good things and two bad things. Do we vote for or against him? How do we evaluate whether his “solutions” are effective or ineffective?

I don’t have an answer to this. Please provide examples of changes that are needed but are not possible for the current government.

Again, I need a better idea of what your fix would be. I would not contend that our Constitution is perfect. However, to argue this point with you, I need to have a better notion of what your improved version would be like. Given that I think that stronger government is bad, I can guess as to what my objections would be. But without more specific input from you, it is too theoretical of a debate.

3. The Supreme Court

And how would you achieve this? Replace the court with a jury? Have the people vote on every law to determine its Constitutionality? Have the Court be composed of elected official? Obviously, there are problems with the Supreme Court, but I can think of any obvious way to solve them easily. And I definitely can’t think of a practical way to hand this responsibility off to The People.

I don’t have a lot of time for research right now. Mind refreshing me on which decision this is?
Lots of things to think about, no?

83

Wow! This thread is still going, eh?

Sorry about vanishing, I haven’t been extremely internet active in the last little while.

Anyway, allow me to respond, real quickly to the last thing that was directed my way, all the way back on page 1.

2SENSE: “I believe that the amendment process is unwieldy and inflexible. I do not consider 27 changes is 200+ years to be “numerous”.
We have discovered a lot in the past 2 centuries.”

One change every 7.4 (give or take a couple) years isn’t often enough? Heck, my science textbooks back at high school weren’t changed that often, and I think we can agree that science moves a little faster than politics.

I also think you are seriously underestimating the inherent (probably unintentional) cruelty of any majority.

Here in my home state of Washington there was an initiative voted on last year, I-200 to be precise, which would lower the registration fees on all motor vehicle liscenses to $30. For months, we heard stories from the transit employees who were paid, primarily with the revenue from vehicle excise fees, telling us that if I-200 was passed they would lose their jobs. Heck, it got to the point where the newspapers and tv stations were actually putting projections about the number of lost jobs in their non-opinion pages. It was an objective fact that voting for I-200 was like voting to fire close to 150 full time employees in the Seattle area alone.

The supporters of the initiative responded by saying ‘Well, they’ll cut the fat from some other Government pork. Don’t worry, nobody has to get fired.’

Never mind that the Governer, the director of Metro, the TV news, the papers, and the drivers themselves were all out there saying ‘YES WE WILL, WE WILL BE FIRED’

The measure passed with something like a seventy to thirty margin. And guess what? People got fired. Some hundred and fifty Metro employees got shafted by the majority, their own neighbors, so that people with SUV’s and other gas sucking machines could save a few bucks a year on tabs.

So don’t tell me it isn’t in the intrest of the majority to dictate to the minority.

84

Thanks for the replies guys. I read them last nite, and was impressed. I should be able to reply to all of these points tonite.

Smartass- I am afraid I am going to have to answer each of the 3 points seperately.
Marbury vs. Madison is the Supreme Court decision that justifies the Court’s review of the Congress. The power of the SC to throw out legislation is not spelled out in the Constitution.

JDeMobray- Wow, that 2nd point is powerful. I didn’t get a lot of sleep because it was worrying at me all night!
I am glad that you found us again.

85

1. Centralized Control:
A.
–I don’t get where you are going with this 1.
I think that there are too many hierarchies in America. I think that since many of them are doing the same job, in a different jurisdiction. In corporate terms, we could merge and downsize these bureacracies. If you know of a better way to organize, then we could eliminate them all together.

Well, it is flexible. How responsive it is would depend on the style of government. I believe that responsible and skilled leadership can be elected. The system that we have now does not promote this type of leadership.

B.

Partly by reducing the number of bureauacracies, as above. Also by changing the geography of the legislature. I would like to eliminate governing from “smoke-filled rooms”. Get rid of the sub-committees. Bring the Congress into 1 place to decide on the laws of the nation. Have them debate issues until a consensus or compromise is reached. If a deadlock occurs, where important decisions cannot be reached, then The People could elect a new government. And if that government did things they didn’t like, they too could be booted out of office.

Regional governments have their place. They are needed to keep things running while the Congress is hashing out other things ( or being elected ). But they are not bodies that should decide national policy. Moving a national problem such as Welfare over onto the states is irresponsible. By empowering the States, the constitution seperated power verticaly as well as into the 3 branches.
How can you “disenfranchise” people by holding votes on issues they don’t care about? If they have no opinion, how can it be ignored?

C.
– The legislators in your example would be free to stand and blame the opposition. But, if no progress was made, they could be looking for a new job.
As for your 2nd example:
No. I have never thought about this “problem”. I do not see how silencing a leader because of his/her views could be a good thing.

D.
– 1. You are not the 1st to submit this, of course. I reply; If this is so, then how come Great Britian is not a totalitarianist state?

– 2. On the basis that I watch C-Span and see no government activity. Under my proposal, the actual govening would be going on in front of that camera. People could watch it as it happened.

– 3. I hope I answered this in C.

– 4. I do not mean to skirt issues, I will try to be clear here. People decide what is right and wrong for themselves. Governmental decisions should be based on a consensus among the citizens. Governments should promote consensus. If the majority opinion is “get rid of them” ( the Congress ), then they should go. I think your vote should have the same power as any other vote.

That took me a lot longer than I thought. It looks like that will be the only point I cover. I have tried to give you something more tangible to illustrate my ideas. I will get to the other points.

Trust me.

:slight_smile:

86

2sense:

Okay, we’re going all over the place again. However, having reviewed what you have posted so far, I think I now have a clearer idea where you are coming from. You have said that the government is too weak and that the people do not have a strong enough voice. You submit that there should be a strong central government where decisions are dictated by the will of the majority.

Based on what you have posted, I believe you must agree with the following:

  1. There is some objective way to determine right and wrong, outside of any fundamental societal agreements.
  2. In solving problems and creating rules, there is only one right answer or best solution.
  3. The opinion of the majority is usually correct.
  4. If the majority is wrong, it will realize its mistake in time and seek to correct it.
  5. The opinion of the majority is more valid than the opinion of any individual.

I believe that all of these statements are wrong. Now, my Vulcan friend, I will try to convince you that your way of thinking is bad.

I have noticed that you like to use the word “consensus”, with the implication being that everyone is in agreement. It’s certainly a pleasant sounding word, but when you are dealing with issues of government, it can only amount to majority rule, since it is a very rare occasion when you have a truly unanimous decision.

Let’s say that we are making a choice about how to solve a problem. There are two possible solutions. If everyone agrees that one solution is the best, then everyone is happy. If not, you decide based on the majority opinion. When you have a majority decision, you have the following situation:
At least 50% of the people are happy. Up to 50% of the people are unhappy.
–>Worst case, almost half the people just got hosed.

You may contend that this is a best-case scenario. I recommend a third way: Let the people who like solution A implement it. Let the people who like solution B implement it. Let the people who don’t like either solution do nothing. Result: More happiness.

The Founding Fathers were not just afraid of government. They were afraid of power. Power corrupts. Not because people are evil, but because people tend to act in a way that they think best promotes their self-interests. Your system does not place the power in the hands of a single tyrant, rather in the hands of the majority. The result is tyranny nonetheless.

Have you thought about what life might be like in the 2sense democracy?
-The majority might decide that homosexuals are victims of some sort of sickness. It is a problem. We could institute solutions to cure them of this problem, and thus rid society of it.
-The majority might decide that this country should adhere to a Christian ethic. We could decide that Christian doctrine should be taught to all children.
-The majority might decide that pornography is vile, and outlaw it.
-The majority might decide that foul language is an unseemly embarrassment, and forbid it.
-The majority might decide that our government is the perfect government, and forbid criticism.
-I think you can imagine the rest…

The question is, what’s to stop these sorts of things from happening? People’s general goodwill? I would point out that there is a thread right now on this board where they have just about reached a “consensus” that it is okay for society to determine who is allowed to have children.

Once you put that kind of power in the hands of a central government, what’s to stop it from abusing the people? You cannot answer that the majority won’t allow it. The majority will only control how large of a group of people gets abused.

Perhaps if you were to base the government on a strong Constitution, it would prevent abuses from happening. [Dramatic pause] At this point, I present into evidence the Constitution of the United States, which you have submitted makes the government too weak. After all, the Constitution clearly states
-No laws will be passed that serve to establish religion (and yet, the money says “In God we trust”.
-The right of the people to keep and bear arms will not infringed (and yet…)
-The President may not take the country to war without consent of the Congress (except for Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq, the Balkans…)
-Those powers not granted to the federal government are expressly reserved for the states or the people (and yet, the fed has managed to dictate speed limits, drinking ages, approval of medications, rights to broadcast over radio airwaves, the list goes on and on)

You may be right that the Founding Fathers erred, but if they did, it was in making the government too powerful. So far, this weak government has managed to step all over the protections given us in the Constitution. Sometimes at the will of the majority. Sometimes in order to do what is “right”, at least according to whoever was making the decision. Our elected representatives have no problem with buying cheese for no other purpose than to bury it in the ground. They think it is a good investment to pay farmers not to farm. They have spent billions of dollars to stop people from harming themselves with drugs and have not only failed to do this, but also created one of the richest and most heavily armed criminal classes this country has ever experienced. They have unleashed the IRS on citizens to force them to pay for programs from feeding the poor to sending criminals to college to buying cheese to keep the price high, because the government deems them necessary. You want more solutions? We’ve got more than we can afford now.

And you want to give them more power.

I can only conclude that you must expect to always be on the same side as the majority of voters.

The only appropriate use of government is to protect rights. It is pointless to try to use government to solve problems, because it won’t. People, such as yourself, want to use the government as a tool to accomplish ends that they think are fair or justified, and think that having the support of the majority makes it okay. Group decisions only benefit the deciding group. Individual decisions benefit each individual. Beyond protection of my fundamental rights, I do not want the government to assist me or attempt to solve my problems. I know that the solutions are often worse.

Even now, large groups of citizens want to wield the government like a sword, lopping off property rights here, privacy rights there. You want to make the sword longer and sharper. Well, if you get your wish, please allow me a few minutes to leave the room before you start waving that thing around.

I submit that the result of strong central government is tyranny, whether by a despot or by a majority. I submit that the more decisions made by government, the less individuals have control over their own lives. I submit that the more government tries to solve problems, the poorer the people become, and the more problems they have. I submit as evidence all of recorded human history.

[Stepping down and sliding the soap box across the floor]

Your turn.

87

I have fallen behind in my posting again. I am sorry. I meant to reply to JDeMobray last night as well. But I got caught up in the Native American thread. And I have to go back over there and post again.

So quickly:

I do not find myself in agreement with what you thought I might.

  1. I disagree.

  2. Possibly, but people will rarely, if ever, find that mythical solution.

  3. It would depend on the questions asked. Do many people have a correct opinion on every subject known to Mankind? No.

  4. It can and does happen ( depending on how you define “in time” ). But always, certainly not.

  5. I disagree.
    However, a vote of affirmation would be more valid than a personal opinion, in a political sense.

I would not propose a direct democracy, simply a Parlimentary system similar to the European’s, with some American ingenuity thrown in. Since the European governments have not fallen into tyranny, and they are included in your submission of evidence, I think your logic may be flawed.

I repeat. If this is so, then how come Great Britian is not a totalitarianist state?

OK, Thanks for the reply.

JDeMobray, I promise you a reply tonite.

88

I do not like to see people lose jobs. I hope that those 150 people got a decent severence package at least.

I have started this post 4 times now. I can not seem articulate my view here. Thank you for pointing out this hole in my thinking. You can be assured that I am continuing to ponder this.

A question:
I do not believe that it is true that all majorities are inherently cruel. But, if it were, then how could a person trust power to a minority?

Thank you for the thought provoking post!
I do have a reply for your 1st point. And sometime I will get around to posting it.
-curtis

89

2sense:

You’re overreading my word “tyranny”. It is not necessarily totalitarian, though I believe that is often the ultimate end (let’s see what happens to GB…). I will say, though, that your average British person has much less freedom than your average American. Even so, I feel I am currently being tyrannized (if that is a word):
-Over a fourth of every paycheck I earn is taken from me before I even get a chance to count the money. It is spent on various and sundry “solutions” that I do not support and I think are unhelpful.
-There are places in this country that I would feel distinctly unsafe to travel, because they have effectively become militarized zones, controlled by criminals who make their livings off of the excess profits generated by the U.S.'s Drug War.
-For the first 10 years I had a driver’s license, I was limited to the ridiculous snail-like speed of 55, because the federal government used my money to blackmail the states into setting the federally recommended maximum.
-When my daughter enters school, it will cost me a great deal to get her a decent education, over and above the amount that is being stolen from me by the government to finance one of the most woefully inadequate education systems in the world.
-I think you get my drift.

I don’t even think that cruelty is an issue. Central decision-making results in uniform policy for everyone. That is to say, the central government, by whatever means, determines the best “solution” for everyone and then imposes it on them. It may be the best compromise or it may be the worst abuse of the minority. Regardless, it cannot serve each individual’s interests as effectively as solutions arrived at by the individuals themselves.

The example I listed above represent situations where the government, at the urging of the voters, has attempted to solve problems. You may or may not like or approve of the solutions being provided. I absolutely despise them. Thus, I am being victimized by the majority of people in this country who seem to think it is okay for them to decide how to spend my money.

You don’t. You create a government with very limited and strictly delineated powers, whose primary purpose is to protect the rights of the citizenry so that they may be free to seek their happiness and solve their problems as they see fit.

Which is why I say that our founding fathers did an unbelievably good job. They just didn’t make the government weak enough.

-VM

90

Don’t worry about replying to my posts in a really timely manner. I usually only check the boards about once a day, sometimes even less frequently. I appreciate that you’re spending a lot of time on this topic.

91

I have been thinking about your assertion that majorities are inherently, if unwittingly, cruel. I do not have a handle on this yet. If I am wrong here, I would think that my arguments hold up, assuming that minorities are not inherently benevolent.
I intend to pose this question over on OpalCat’s board. Here is a LINK if you wish to join in. It will be in The Grand Forum.

As to your 1st point:

I would not think that change every 7 years would be unreasonable. However I submit that this is not how the ammendment process works. Instead, the ammendments tend to come in groups associated with “Great Events”:

[ul]
[li]Amds. 1-12 (1791-1804) “Revolutionary War”[/li][li]Amds. 13-15 (1965-1868) “Civil War”[/li][li]Amds. 16-19 (1913-1920) “WW1”[/li][li]Amds. 20&21 (1931) “Great Depression”[/li][li]Amds. 23-26 (1961-1971) “Civil Rights Movement”[/li][/ul]
I have omitted Amendment 22 (1951). It might fit in above as “WW2”, or it might be something else entirely.
Also omitted is the last 1, Ammendment 27 (1992). It does not fit into a neat catagory because it was proposed in 1789 and ratified in 1992. What can I say about 203 years of debate before resolution. And such an “important” ammendment.

It looks to me like there have been few times in our history when the constitution could be changed. If you accept my “Great Events” relationship, I would point out that these changes occurred after the events. I would prefer a government that is proactive rather than reactive.

Thanks again for the Majority argument. Please come over to the other board. The posters over there do not bite. In fact, they like new people. Anyone would be welcome.

92

I have a problem with your response to my “British Tyranny” question. The problem is that I do not know enough about British government to dispute your answer.
It looks like I have to do some research.

In your post, you state that minorities are not to be trusted either.

I submit that someone must govern.
Whether a majority or a minority of opinions are heard, someone must make decisions. In your example I would submit that the power lies with a minority, as it does in this nation.
This is the essence of my problem with the Supreme Court. The FF are not making decisions for this country today, the Supreme Court is. And I don’t get to vote for them.

The invitation to the 3FMB (in my last post) is open for you as well.
All are welcome.
Good Posting!

93

2sense:

I appreciate the invitation, but, to be honest, I’m spending too damn much time on this board. I sure don’t want to get involved in another.

Agreed. However, where we disagree is with the proper activities of government. I say that it should only be there to protect the rights of individuals. Sounds extreme, I know, but there is logic to it.

Decisions have to be made. We disagree on which decisions need to be made on behalf of The People in general. Because I value freedom and respect the resourcefulness of individuals, I prefer a system where each individual has as much control over his life as possible.

You keep talking about solving problems and making decisions, as if one problem might not have multiple valid solutions or as if taking more than one course simultaneously were inherently bad. Let’s say that the problem is that people can’t get food in a hurry to have on their lunch break. The strong government solution would be to establish a McDonald’s within a certain distance of every workplace so that everyone could have lunch. The Libertarian approach would be to do nothing. Entrepreneurs, seeing an unfilled need would build all different sorts of restaurants serving all different sorts of food in different places. Thus, the problem gets solved with multiple solutions.

How about another example. Let’s say that there are two groups of 100 people who decide they need a government. The groups are exactly the same, except one group selects Smartass to be their government, the other group selects 2sense. Smartass believes his only purpose is to protect the people’s rights so they can solve their own problems. 2sense believes he is empowered to act in their name for the betterment of society.

Now, on this occasion, each of the citizens has one dollar of income outside of that which he needs to meet his basic needs. Three people approach the government. One offers to dig and install a well in the center of town, so that people will not have to walk to the river for water. He can do this for $40. One offers to establish a park in the middle of town for the people to share and enjoy. He also can do this for $40. Lastly, a guy offers to establish a fund to feed fisherman in the case that they have a really bad month of work. The price? You guessed it: $40.

As it turns out, 40 of the citizens–the “Brown Eyes” live by the river and rely on the river for their livelihoods. 60 of the citizens–the “Blue Eyes”–live farther from the river and rely on agriculture for their livelihoods. Given these facts, once presented with these three options, this is how the people feel:
Brown Eyes
-They don’t see any benefit to a well–the river is closer than the center of town. Therefore, they would rather not spend any of their money on it.
-On the other hand, they really like the idea of “insurance” for fisherman. Any one of them would happily spend his whole dollar for such a system.
-In terms of the park, they think it would be nice, but wouldn’t want to spend “too much money” on it.
Blue Eyes
-They love the idea of a well, particularly during the dry months of summer. Currently they are having to travel all the way to the river whenever they need water, and the center of town is much closer. Any one of them would happily spend his whole dollar for such a system.
-On the other hand, since none of them fish, they don’t see any benefit to insurance for fisherman and would rather not spend any of their own money on such a “socialist” scheme.
-In terms of the park, they think it would be nice, but wouldn’t want to spend “too much money” on it.

2sense government:
2sense realizes that this is a situation where people can use the profits from their production to improve their society. Any one of these ideas could feasibly benefit society. However, being a believer in government serving the people, he decides that it is best to let The People make the determination. So he calls together The People for a vote: “We have the ability to improve our society. Using the collective spending power of The People, we can improve life for everyone. However, because improvements are expensive, we must select which ones to invest in.”

First he asks for a vote on the well idea. The majority is in favor of it. “Now that that is decided, we must choose whether to spend our remaining money on the park or the fishermen’s ‘insurance’ idea.”

40 people vote for the insurance, 60 vote for the park. The $20 remaining goes into the “public trust fund”, to be applied to later spending decisions.

Smartass government:
When the people come to Smartass to present their ideas, he says, “I think these are all great ideas, guys. However, it is not my place to distribute the money of The People. If you want their money, I’m afraid you’re going to have to ask them for it.”

So the three guys make their presentation to the people.

Immediately, the Blue Eyes all get up and head for the guy offering to dig a well. Quickly, they realize that there are 60 of them and only 40 is needed. They work out a deal where each person pays .66 and retains $.34 to spend on cheap women (Blue Eyes are like that sometimes).

At the same time, the Brown Eyes head for the guy with the insurance idea. As there are 40 them, they are just able to afford the insurance.

Sadly, the guy who offered to build a park had no takers.

The Results

So, whose system works better? Well, that depends on what you value:

2sense
60% of the people got the thing they most wanted.
40% of the people did not get the thing they most wanted.
100% of the people got something that wanted “a little”.

Smartass
100% of the people got the thing they most wanted.
100% of the people did not get something they wanted “a little”.

I know this is a ridiculously simple example, but I believe the conclusion is valid: If you prefer the second outcome, you are a Libertarian–you just may not realize it. If you prefer the second outcome, you are a Social Democrat and, to be honest, an enemy of freedom.

Minority/Majority–who cares? I want power to lie with the individual.

I agree that there are problems with the Supreme Court, but I am not convinced a general vote would solve them. In essence, you are voting for them when you vote for President and Congress. Unfortunately, I can’t easily come up with a solution for the problem as I see it.

-VM

94

Hello,
I do not believe in authoratarian government. I do not think that taking more than 1 course of action is bad. If you are only taking 1 course of action, then the problem isn’t that complex. I think that the structure of government should encourage solutions that are in the best interests of everyone. What those interests are must be decided. I think that everyone should have a say in those decisions.

I have 2 questions:

  1. If you have no right to decide what your rights are, then how safe are they?

  2. Is my understanding correct; That while you respect the resourcefulness of individuals, you do not respect the wisdom of individuals in governance?

I was going to expand on the 2 governments story, but I decided not to. I did get around to checking out those links that you posted. According to the quiz, I am a liberal. I do think the “enemy of freedom” label is harsh. Perfect for the Conservatives though. :smiley:
Thanks for the reply, Smartass.
I am slowing down a bit, but still hanging in there.

95

2sense:

And if everyone’s interests aren’t the same? Would you say that more choices are better than fewer choices? Is there a cutoff, or is maximizing choices (Libertarianism) a valid goal?

Me, too. And I think they should be able vary their involvement based on how strongly they feel affected by each decision.

I think we have a problem with the definition of “right”. I suppose you can think of anything as a “right” that you want to. However, if we are going to talk about rights in a discussion of government, we need to think of which rights government should protect. Obviously, in this case, there’s going to have to be one definition. How do you define these rights? Libertarian definition, from waterj2:

I like this description so much, it’s the second time I’ve quoted it.

Based on that definition, I would answer your question by saying that you keep your rights as safe as possible by ensuring that all individuals’ rights are protected equally.

That would be a misphrasing. First, I would say that the combined resourcefulness of 100 individuals was greater than that of 10. Likewise, the cominbed resourcefulness of a population is greater than that of a small group of representatives.

Second, individuals demonstrate their maximum resourcefulness when striving for something that they believe to be very important to their personal self-interests. Alternatively, I don’t think that a representative will strive as hard, or be as resourceful, in efforts to achieve the self-interests of constituents. This is compounded by the fact that each of these constituents has a different personal hierarchy of self-interests.

I don’t think I would say that you are an enemy of freedom in that you hate it or want it destroyed. But you are an enemy in that you will support initiatives that allow it to be taken away. To put it another way: Freedom can certainly have worse enemies, but you are hardly qualifying as its friend. Unfortunately, the only way to keep freedom is to vigilantly protect it. And for me to have any real hope of keeping mine, I must defend yours.

-VM

96

Hello Smartass,

I think that I am ready to stop.

I just opened the “US is a socialist society”. I hadn’t kept up after my sarcastic post. Since we seem to be arguing Libertariansism here as well, and since SingleDad is much more logical than I, I will pin my hopes on him. I might post some opinions over there as well.

So thank you for this debate. I enjoyed it and it was educational.

My thanks to all posters in this thread!

97

2sense:

Look forward to debating with you in the socialism thread, and hope you want pin to many hopes on SingleDad. I much prefer your debating style.

-VM

98

2sense:

Look forward to debating with you in the socialism thread, and hope you won’t pin to many hopes on SingleDad. I much prefer your debating style.

-VM