rw Jefferson I don’t understand what benefits this slogan is supposed to produce. In fact I don’t understand the benefits any slogan is going to produce, other than a decorative effect on a courthouse wall. People will look at it, go “that’s nice,” and go about their business. That’s it.
No one’s against peace. No one’s against liberty. No one’s against questing. But a slogan etched on a wall isn’t going to do anything to better secure people’s liberty to peacefully quest.
You haven’t given one iota of proof that a new slogan (which by your own account is simply a restatement of existing priciples) would work better, or proof that slogans work at all.
I’d like to suggest the following:
No man who views the American people with contempt should ever be given authority over them; lest he forget who is working for whom
If slogans can keep tyrants at bay (they never have, by the way, but let’s say for the sake of argument), that should serve nicely. Of course it would also disqualify you as official judicial sloganeer, based on your disparaging attitude toward “the masses” expressed in this thread.
If my point is unclear, feel free to take a week or two to puzzle it out.
[sub]Cry the yellow freedom![/sub]
They covered national defense, didn’t they? Of course, they probably never imagined how expensive it would get.
But, as with security and liberty, it is equally dangerous to assume the two can never be at odds.
Y’know, R.W.'s right.
What America needs right now is a good slogan. If only we could pick the right slogan we’d be able to solve all our problems. Ain’t no problem can’t be solved with the right slogan. Just blue-skying here, but how about:
“Whip Inflation Now!”
“Set your thermostat to 68 and put on a sweater!”
“It’s morning in America!”
“When the President does it, that means it is not illegal!”
“There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch!”
“Peace through superior firepower!”
"What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women! "
“Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?”
“Live Long and Prosper”
“You’ll PAY to know what you really think!”
“We’re through being cool!”
“America: FUCK YEAH!”
“In his house in R’lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming!”
As already stated, this is a new translation of the principles found in the Declaration of Independence. It is these principles, and only these principles, that give us the right to form and maintain a new government. That fits my understanding of “founding principles”.
It is these principles that separate us patriots (we hold these truths) from tyrants (those that don’t) or potential tyrants (those that don’t fully understand). I think you will find that a person’s reaction to these words clearly and accurately reveals their nature.
Tyrants may not fear slogans and platitudes, but they fear the words and spirit of liberty. In certain countries of the world today, anyone foolish enough to chant or post the PtL (or their best translation) in public will be quickly arrested if not executed. The spirit of liberty is much more powerful than you give credit.
Exactly; you cannot have peace if you deny peace(ful quest). The greater and more forceful and unfair the denial and punishment of peaceful quest, the greater the strife, the less the peace.
Consider the metaphorical sense of placing these words of liberty “over” our courthouse and laws.
I am hoping against hope that a judge or jury somewhere, someday will finally realize “Well gee, growing medicinal herbs on your own property for your own benefit (no matter how dubious that benefit might be) can be a peaceful quest. The constitution gives congress the right to regulate commerce, but I don’t seem to remember where it says the right of peaceful quest can be prohibited (denied) constitutionally. This is a fine upstanding citizen with no previous record of threat. Unless the prosecution can somehow prove this peaceful person’s apparently peaceful quest is actually a threat that must be completely prohibited, (as opposed to well regulated), I must find for the plaintiff.”
Maybe if these words were staring every judge and every jury in the face every day they entered the courtroom, things would change for the better. If you were a defendant, but innocent of threat to peace, no matter the law, would you not demand that your judge and jury to understand and hold these truths?
All I am saying is give peace a chance.
Its
r~
Yeah, but the difference between your OP and the Declaration of Independence is that the DoI isn’t just a bunch of slogans. It’s got a whole argument to go with it. “All men are created equal,” isn’t a slogan, it’s part of a whole line of reasoning for human rights. If it just stopped there, it wouldn’t mean anything. Equal? Everyone’s not equal: some are rich, some are sick, some are women some are slaves. It doesn’t make any sense until it specificies what it means by “equal:” “that they are endowed with the inalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” And then there’s a whole document that continues to refine the idea, and then a whole body of law that explains how the idea applies to real life. All you’ve got is the slogan. You haven’t shown how it applies to the real world, or what it really even means. And if you can’t do that, you’re not going to change anyone’s mind.
So these tyrants are sort of like vampires? If someone goes up to Karl Rove and yells, “Give peace a chance!” he’s going to turn into a bat?
Look, there isn’t a person in this country who is going to say they’re against peace, or liberty. Except some of them aren’t really for peace or liberty. They just say they are. Because they’re liars. Liars aren’t afraid of slogans. In fact, they love slogans, because if they say the slogan loud enough and often enough, people might not notice that he doesn’t actually follow the slogan. Loyalty oaths don’t work, either, because these people are liars. They’ll gladly take any oath you offer them, and turn around and break them as soon as your back is turned. Because they’re not honest people, and oaths don’t work on people who aren’t honest. That’s why oaths are useless, and slogans dangerous.
Apparently not, if it gets locked up and executed so often.
Oh, marijuana legalization. That explains a lot.
Look, I think I get what you mean when you go on about “peaceful quest.” You’re basically saying, people should be free to do what they want, so long as they aren’t hurting anyone. (It’s a really stupid, faux-classical way of saying it, though. People don’t talk like that anymore.) You’re not going to get too many who disagree with that principle. The problem is, how do you apply that principle to real life? Let’s pretend for a minute that you put “All are equal in right of peaceful quest,” on a courthouse, and people actually understood what the fuck its supposed to mean. In fact, they are so struck by it’s <ahem> eloquence that they are fairly dazzled by it, and resolve to live their whole lives by that principle.
Then they go into the courtroom and lock the drug dealer away for life because he was interfereing with other people’s peaceful quests by getting them hooked on The Demon Weed.
Everyone needs principles, but they’re only a foundation. You also need a rational way to apply those principles to real life, and if you want to change people’s minds, you need to be able to articulate that application and explain why it is superior to the way they apply those principles to their lives. I think you’re missing about two steps out of this process.
Well, there is that whole portion of the Constitution that legalizes slavery…
“Defendent.” The plaintiff is the person instigating the legal action.
Not really. I’d hope that they did, but if they didn’t, no amount of demanding is going to change that.
Why? Don’t just shout a slogan at me, give me a goddamned argument! Why should I give peace a chance? Why is it better than “Blow the motherfuckers up!” Don’t tell me its better, show me its better! Until you can do that, you’re just spouting hot air.
Why?
I’m all for legalizing marijuania, or at least making it medically available and decriminalizing possesion for personal use, but I don’t think a slogan over a courthouse is going to accomplish this goal. It’s the Legislature, not the Judicuary, that must legalize pot. I think it will only happen on a state-by-state basis, though the feds seem to have their undies in a bunch over this prospect. (Too many jobs threatened at the DEA?) Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I believe the SCOTUS backed federal authority on drug laws using a commerce clause argument, which means it will be a long time before we have a sensible marijuania policy. :mad:
I’m afraid our OP is not here to debate, but to preach. Libertarian witnessing. I’m outta here. I’d recommend the same. Otherwise, have fun.
I was curious if they ever did, hence my (unsatisfied) request for cites of this phrase in revolution-era writings.
Oh, well… the OP’s proposal is verbatim from the “Magic Wand Book of Government”, chapter six. I’m done.
What gets me about these libertarian cranks is that they are convinced that all they have to do is sit down and rationally explain their political philosophy, and everyone (except a few diseased tyrants) will suddenly become illuminated, like a Jack Chick atheist hearing about Jesus for the first time. See, freedom is such a powerful force that everyone who learns about it will want it.
Except everyone today–especially here in statist, freedom-forgetting America–is living under tyranny, we just don’t know it. How did this horrible state of affairs come about? If a few slogans were all it takes for freedom to triumph, how is it that mankind has been wallowing in slavery and tyranny for the last 10,000 years? Well, we have a clear cut answer. Anyone who hears the words of freedom and does not immediately adopt them must be an evil, evil person. In fact, America must be infested with evil people! America is enslaved by tyranny because 99% of us are evil statists, if only the good-hearted freedom-loving majority could escape from the tyranny of the statist majority we’d have a utopia.
Or not.
Weren’t some Libs floating a project, a few years ago, to all move into one American state and become a political majority there?
(Of course, American Nazis have had a similar project to form an all-white state.)
The Free State Project is still floating. New Hampshire is the lucky state they’ve chosen.
Then you should have no trouble elaborating on what reaction you expect. Please cite exactly which words we’re going to use and what reaction you would expect from people to determine their true nature.
Since “All are equal in peaceful quest” will confuse 99% of all English speaking people, who won’t understand what the hell you’re trying to say, I would suggest those are not good words to use.
PtL? What the heck’s that?
rw, I’m going to say something that should be obvious to most people but that we sometimes tend to forget:
Words are cheap.
Actually, let me elaborate.
What a person says their values are means nothing. A person’s values are determined by where they spend their time and their money.
No platitudes will improve society; none. The Declaration of Independence contains the bezt summation of the value of personal liberty I’ve ever read (and as Miller points out, it’s an argument, not a slogan) and you say that doesn’t work. (You’ve never explained what they’re supposed to accomplish or why you feel they don’t accomplish it, but never mind.) Trust me, dude; you aren’t going to improve on Jefferson. If the DoI isn’t good enough, no words in any human language are good enough. “Equal in peaceful quest” is just stupidly bad; it sounds like you’re promising equal billing in an online role playing game.
Start with some basics: Why do you believe slogans will help society? In what way, and how? What specific improvements are you looking for? What evidence do you have that short slogans would accomplish such a thing?
Freedom is not accomplished through words. Every nation has a constitution that promises liberty in flowery language. Some languages have had many such constitutions. Yet only some countries offer liberty and freedom to their populations. Do you think it’s because of better slogans? I can’t believe any sane adult would think that, but you seem to be moving in that direction.
No, they won’t think that because you engraved it on the courthouse. That’s preposterous. A slogan nobody understands is not going to overturn centuries of common law jurisprudence.
I find myself desirous of enquiring, as I find myself along the spiritual quest (and what purpose shall a quest be thought to fulfill, if not to find oneseld, as I have found myself?) to be thus inspired by the peaceful quest of the O that is P, and ever shall I ponder wherefore others do not find it so: has one–if one be you, and so shall I hope to find you to be, ever and always, twixt the Samaritan and the Pharisee (fallen though may be; fallen though I may be; fallen though we, all, may be) that you surely find within yourself, as I, too, must find within myself a Samaritan and a Pharisee, fallen both–ever really looked at one’s hand? I mean, *really *looked at one’s hand?
Yeah, they’re gonna get right on it, right after they smoke one more joint.
Dude, we’re all 17 once.
So, if I were to kill 1000 people in cold blood because I felt like it. Then escaped to Cuba and posted emails about how much I enjoyed the killing. I would be innocent since I had not gone through the process of having been found guilty?
Isn’t the line more correctly written
All are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty of threat to peaceful quest.
Even that would suggest that I may not chose to presume that Michael Jackson is guilty of improper behaviour with children. And that I am somehow breaking this law set in stone by having my own oppinion of a persons innocence or guilt at least somewhat independent of the judicial system.
Which would lead to
All are to be presumed innocent in the view of the law until proven guilty of threat to peaceful quest.
Which then just leaves the definition of such things as “threat to peaceful quest.”?
rwjefferson, the Quote boxes are to be used to provide citations of the actual words other posters have submitted. It is permissible to use standard typographical devices such as the ellipsis (…) or “<snip>” to indicate where you have removed text that you found superfluous to your argument.
It is not permissible to interject editorial comments (such as a dismissive “blah, blah, blah, blah”) into text from another poster.
Do not do this again.
[ /Moderating ]
Bryan:
Please accept my humble apologies. I seem to have inherited a recessive tourette’s gene. Please believe that my regrets originated shortly after I posted. My offensive quotes were uncalled for.
Peace
rwj