Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: What's wrong with Socialism?
Thread: What's wrong with Socialism? This thread is 15 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 · «PREV / NEXT»
Shyranis
Shyranis


Promising
Supreme Hero
posted July 08, 2010 05:17 AM

So then the Constitution, and Madison say that a State government can be as charitable as it pleases. Right? Just making sure that is clear.

I ask all of these questions because I find your opinion interesting and wish to see the response.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.

Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Binabik
Binabik


Responsible
Legendary Hero
posted July 08, 2010 06:13 AM

States are not nearly as restricted as the federal government in it's powers. The constitution doesn't actually address the issue of socialism, capitalism or any other economic or social system.

The closest I can think of off the top of my head is that it gives the legislative branch the power to promote the "general welfare". That line is wide open for interpretation and the only real way to discern what was meant is to study the language of the time and study the intent of those who wrote it.

The framers of the constitution obviously did not all agree with each other. Their views about the role of government varied quite widely, from those who did not want a federal government at all, to those who wanted a strong central government.

However, the 10th amendment basically states that if a power is not specifically given to the federal government then they can't do it. All other powers lie with the state or local governments, or with the people.

So on one hand you have a very general phrase allowing the feds to promote the general welfare. And on the other hand they are prohibited from doing anything not specially spelled out. There are VERY few powers specifically given to them, so the vast majority of the current US government must somehow be justified by that single line about the general welfare.

I've never gotten around to studying the meaning of that phrase and how it was used at the time, but I'm pretty sure it was not used in the sense of a welfare state. I suspect it was meant to mean things that are of a common interest to the various states, if the representatives of those states agree to it.

This degree of states rights is long gone. However the states still have quite a bit of autonomy, more than most people realize.

Regarding the US Constitution vs socialism, I think it largely depends on how you define socialism. Or maybe more importantly, which aspects of socialism you are referring to. I think the constitution is completely neutral about some aspects of socialism. It would largely depend on the federal involvement in it and what type of involvement.

Personally I think it's probably completely constitutional at the state or local level, but at the federal level it becomes very questionable.

As to the larger question of what's wrong with socialism....if I'm not mistaken, that argument has already been made about 1368453468345 times at HC......and whether it's constitutional or not in the US is completely irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of it.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 08, 2010 08:23 AM
Edited by JollyJoker at 08:24, 08 Jul 2010.

@ Mvass

Quote:
No, the ultimate goal of socialism is total economic equality between all people and public ownership of all the means of production.
I repeat, this is not true. There is no singular definition of socialism. Just because a certain term has been used at a certain time in a certain sense doesn't mean it can't change with times. Just look at how the term DEMOCRACY has changed - it was something very different from what it is now in Athens, two and a half millenia ago. What you mean is COMMUNISM. The term SOCIALISM is older than Marx and the communist idea - and there hasn't been a clear definition around.
Quote:

Quote:
if you can afford buying something that only, say, 10 or less% of said society can afford, you should "give to the poor" (and pay luxury tax)
Oh? Why's that?
Because it's only fair? Because it's your "voluntary" contribution to respect the fact that you are living in a society that has developed in such a way to allow you to make so good use of your skills to be able to afford so much more than the rest of it? To say thanks? To hand society who served you so well a tip?
Quote:

Quote:
Too low to be just.
Ah, social justice. AKA theft.
Putting someone into jail is theft of freedom as well. I don't see your point.
Quote:

Quote:
How that is? The tax money is spent. Owners of means of productions make a profit. ONLY from their profit they pay taxes.
What does the spent tax money have to do with the owners of the means of production?
Eventually all money, when it's spent and not hidden under the mattress, runs through the hands of the owners of the means of production; or it is used to buy or create new means of production, but since government or state ownership of said means is such a big no-no, only private persons do that.

@ Elodin

Now you say this:
Quote:
No, that is ludicrous.  it means that the Constitution is a written document. Written documents have fixed meanings and must be taken in context. The Constitution only changes in meaning if it is amended.

But before you said that:
Quote:
The Constitution must be interpreted according to the orignial intent of the founders, not what liberal activist judges wish it meant.


Your last statement would be Foundingfatherism as in Maoism, because in that case you'd have to consult the words of the great founding fathers when the Supreme Court made a decision, which would ultimately mean that the spirit of the actual and ruling constitution would always breathe the spirit of 1776 - living in the past. THAT is ludicrous, since the FFs have been living in a completely different society.

Written documents have fixed meanings, indeed, but if that was solving all problems we wouldn't need courts: it is not always simple in which way "fixed meanings" apply to a given situation. Amendments to the US constitution were (and are) made where they were deemed necessary, which means, where the original text wasn't covering something with enough clarity or not at all, and not to CHANGE things. For example, if dogs - or some sort of dogs, maybe some genetically altered very intelligent sort of dog - would be considered as "similar enough to humans to be granted basic individual rights", you'd have to make an Amendment specifying that - it's not CHANGING the constitution, it's AMENDING it.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 08, 2010 08:36 AM

Quote:
Just look at how the term DEMOCRACY has changed - it was something very different from what it is now in Athens, two and a half millenia ago. What you mean is COMMUNISM.
The only difference between what "democracy" meant back then and what it means now is that now we refer to the Athenian definition as "direct democracy". The definition hasn't changed that much. As for communism, you're wrong about that too - communism is public ownership of all property.

Quote:
Because it's your "voluntary" contribution to respect the fact that you are living in a society that has developed in such a way to allow you to make so good use of your skills to be able to afford so much more than the rest of it? To say thanks? To hand society who served you so well a tip?
Society hasn't given me anything. I was educated by individuals at the expense of individuals. And when I buy something, I pay for those who made whatever I'm buying.

Quote:
Putting someone into jail is theft of freedom as well.
No, it's recognising that people gave up their freedom when they chose to commit a crime.

Quote:
Eventually all money, when it's spent and not hidden under the mattress, runs through the hands of the owners of the means of production
Eventually all money runs through everybody's hands. I don't see your point.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 08, 2010 09:27 AM

Quote:
The only difference between what "democracy" meant back then and what it means now is that now we refer to the Athenian definition as "direct democracy". The definition hasn't changed that much. As for communism, you're wrong about that too - communism is public ownership of all property.
EVENTUALLY, and after the dictatorship of the proletariate.
I repeat for the third time - you are wrong about socialism. I don't know where your information is coming from, but should it be wiki, than the ENGLISH wiki article about socialism is pretty bad and incomplete (however the GERMAN article is quite good). And you are wrong about democracy as well, there are more differences - they had a different definition of the term "demos" - people - than we have now

Society hasn't given me anything.
No? Education? Social peace, allowing you to live peaceful and getting educated? Protection? A neighborhood? A town or city with all kinds of benefits, fun and opportunities? Language? The Law? A cultural heritage? Ideas?
Quote:

Quote:
Putting someone into jail is theft of freedom as well.
No, it's recognising that people gave up their freedom when they chose to commit a crime.
The same is true for taxes, sinces paying taxes is ruled by law as well - there is no difference between the codex of conduct called LAW there. So you recognize that people gave up on part of their money by being part of said society.
Quote:

Quote:
Eventually all money, when it's spent and not hidden under the mattress, runs through the hands of the owners of the means of production
Eventually all money runs through everybody's hands. I don't see your point.
When I say, run through their hands, I mean is coming back to them as EARNINGS. If yoo don't have any means you've only your labor to rent. If you have means of production you can hire that labor and pay for it. The owner of said means of productions make money with their means of production, but they do it only because there is a demand for the products:
If I have a bakery that is worked by hands I pay for their work, then ultimately said hands will bring part of their pay back to me because they MUST buy what I produce.
Similarly, an armament corp that makes a profit will pay taxes - but ultimately it will get everything back because the government will buy another couple flights of fighter planes or something.
If the government is paying welfare, than the people who get it will buy the bread I produce - THEY end with bread, I end with a profit, that will enable me to either establish another bakery, buy an existing one or expand to grocery.
However, the middle-class paying the taxes is prevented from investing that money into paricipating by buying into means of production.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me add something about progressive tax rates.
First thing is - it's not PEOPLE who are taxed, it's INCOME. That is, a person isn't paying 90% taxes. A person's income is taken and is taxed IN INCREMEMNTS, that is, with different rates.
Basically, your income is incremented like, in a simple way:
A person has a NET income (after deduction of expenses) which means PROFIT before tax deduction of 250.000 a year.
In this case, depending on tax rate, they pay
0 for the first 20.000 bucks
20% for bucks 20.001-60.000
30% for bucks 60.001- 120.000
and 40% for everything above 120.000
Taxes in that case would be 8.000 + 18.000 + 52.000 or 78.000 bucks.

The trouble is that curves of tax rates are going the wrong way because deductions are hitting lower incomes a lot more than higher  ones. It makes a difference of whether you earn 50.000 a year, paying 9.000 bucks of taxes, with 41.000 remaining, or whether you earn 50.000.000 a year, paying a couple bucks less than 20.000.000, with 30.000.000 remaining.

Money isn't everything. People who really earn that amount of money do it in general not because they want to become a billionaire - there are reasons why they earn that money (if they were not born with a wealth and actually never did something), so while taxes may bother them in principal, money isn't their only and probably not their biggest motivation.
That's in general true only for the lesser-paid jobs or professions. Here is a link to an article saying "Rich want to pay more taxes".

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4916789,00.html
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted July 08, 2010 09:37 AM
Edited by Elodin at 09:40, 08 Jul 2010.

@JJ

No, my two statements are in perfect harmony. My second statement reworded the first to show you what I meant.

Quote:
The Constitution must be interpreted according to the orignial intent of the founders, not what liberal activist judges wish it meant.

it [my previous statement] means that the Constitution is a written document. Written documents have fixed meanings and must be taken in context. The Constitution only changes in meaning if it is amended.


The Constitution is a written document. Written documents have a fixed meaning. The meaning does  not change over time. The Constitution only changes in meaning if it is amended.

You seem to be under the misunderstanding that US judges are allowed to amend the Constitution. Judges cannot amend the Constitution. There are two ways to amend the Constitution. First, through a 2/3 majority vote in both the Senate and the House. Second through a Constitutional Convention.

Quote:
Written documents have fixed meanings, indeed, but if that was solving all problems we wouldn't need courts:


Sure we would. The role of the judge is to apply the law to a specific case.

@Binabik

What is meant by "general welfare" is spelled out in Article 1 Section 8 immediately following the phrase. The enumerated powers. Here is a link to a discussion that gives a few more quotes from Madison about "general welfare."

General Welfare

@Shyranis

Whether or not a state could go all out socialist is dubious. Taking from one person to give to another violates the liberties, due process, and equal protection of the person who had his property taken. So it would seem to violate the 14th Amendment.

Quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


I see no legal justification for the federal government or any state government redistributing wealth. And I see no moral justification for socialism either.
____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Binabik
Binabik


Responsible
Legendary Hero
posted July 08, 2010 09:40 AM

Quote:
There are two ways to amend the Constitution. First, through a 2/3 majority vote in both the Senate and the House. Second through a Constitutional Convention.


Try again.

But what the hell does this have to do with socialism? Not a damn thing.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 08, 2010 10:07 AM

Quote:
@JJ

No, my two statements are in perfect harmony. My second statement reworded the first to show you what I meant.

Quote:
The Constitution must be interpreted according to the orignial intent of the founders, not what liberal activist judges wish it meant.

it [my previous statement] means that the Constitution is a written document. Written documents have fixed meanings and must be taken in context. The Constitution only changes in meaning if it is amended.



Amendments don't CHANGE the constitution - if they would change it, they would be called CHANGES, not amendments.

Anyway, we now seem to agree that the realities of living and society makle it necessary to interpret the constitution, fixed meaning or not.

Now you just have to explain to me why the interpretation has to be made "according to the original intent of the founders".
Is that specified somewhere in the constitution? Is there an article that says "should an article become subject of interpretation we, the founding fathers, demand that all interpretation are to be made according to our original intent"?

Be that as it may, with all respect to the founding fathers, their "original intent" is important only in terms of PURPOSE, not in terms of MEANS, because they couldn't possibly foresee the future. Their world has been a completely different one, and I suppose, they looking at the masses teeming in, say New York, they would completely freak out and ask how someone can live that way.

Which means that "the welfare of the US" is a somewhat abstract thing that depends. For example, at one time it may have meant to further and support the influx of more slaves, at another it might mean the complete opposite and the banning of slavery instead.
At one time it may have meant leaving "charity" to the individual, at another it may mean nationalization of charity, since the problem was threatening the "welfare of the US".
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted July 08, 2010 10:07 AM

@Binabik

It has to do with judges not being allowed to amend the constitution to introduce socialism where none exists just because they want it to be there. This particular branch of the discussion grew out of the idea of "what is wrong with socialism in relation to the United States."

OK, my brief summary left out some details. Here is a link with a full explaination.

Clicky
____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Binabik
Binabik


Responsible
Legendary Hero
posted July 08, 2010 10:58 AM

You call neglecting to mention the entire ratification process leaving out "some details"? I would call that leaving out the entire process.

The only thing the Congress can do is PROPOSE an amendment. After that it's out of the hands of the federal government and entirely up to the states requiring a majority in 3/4 of the states. In the case of a constitutional convention I don't think the feds ever even get involved in it other than paperwork. (I'm not entirely sure about that last statement, but I'm too lazy to look it up)

But I still don't see how it has anything to do with the right or wrong of socialism. It only has to do with whether it's *possible* to do it (legally) in the US.

btw, did you really link to some guy at Youtube named "Shane" as a credible source? LMAO

Hey everyone, Shane at Youtube said so, so it must be true.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted July 08, 2010 12:42 PM

I did not claim the video I linked to was an authoritative source. But you evidently don't consider the Constitution itself or the founding fathers to be credible sources for the meaning of "general welfare" as I have quoted both and "Shane" also quoted both. I linked to that vidoe because it is a simple and short video people can easily understand and it had some more quotes from Madison that I had not previously mentioned.

Anyways, my posts have been in response to questions and related to socialism whereas your off the wall silly question was just silly and off topic. The question of if socialism is Constitutional is certainly relevant to the question as to whether socialism is wrong for America.

@JJ

No, if something is amended it is changed otherwise it would not have been amended.

Quote:
Now you just have to explain to me why the interpretation has to be made "according to the original intent of the founders".
Is that specified somewhere in the constitution?


Because the Constitution is a group of sentecnces in a fixed order. The meaning of the sentences does not change over time. The Constitution has a fixed meaning. What it means today it will mean 10 trillion years from now unless it is amended.

Quote:
Which means that "the welfare of the US" is a somewhat abstract thing that depends.


Except that that the founding fathers said what they meant is the enumerated powers and that the federal government can't go beyond what the enumerated powers say they can do. I've already quoted the founding fathers on that subject. Article 1 Section 8 defines general welfare.

Below are quotes from the founding fathers on what they meant by "general welfare."

Quote:
Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.
-Thomas Jefferson

[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-James Madison

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.
- James Madison

Let there be no change [in the Constitution] by usurpation. For though this, in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
--George Washington

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce…. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state/
--Madison

With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
- James Madison

Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."
--Thomas Jefferson

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare... they may appoint teachers in every state... The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.
- James Madison

James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee,
If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.

When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.
-Thomas Jefferson


So, as you can clearly see since socialist programs are not enumerated in the Constitution they are beyond the authority on congress to implement and are therefore wrong for the United States because they are unconstitutional, aside from the immorality of stealing from one to give to another.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
baklava
baklava


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
posted July 08, 2010 01:05 PM

Quote:
@Baklava

Sorry, if I answered your off-topic question I would likely be banished from the kingdom. Let us stick to the topic of socialism here.

I knew you'd answer a).
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 08, 2010 01:09 PM

Elodin, you ae contradicting yourself. Not for the first time, but tis time it's so obvious a 6-year-old can see it.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Fauch
Fauch


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 08, 2010 01:47 PM

is america still afraid of communism? (socialism too?)
I read not so long ago, if you were a communist there, you should better have hidden it. not sure if it was only because of the cold war?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 08, 2010 06:46 PM

JJ:
Quote:
Education? Social peace, allowing you to live peaceful and getting educated? Protection? A neighborhood? A town or city with all kinds of benefits, fun and opportunities? Language? The Law? A cultural heritage? Ideas?
Education, protection, and the law? That was the government, not society. And, of course, it was financed by individuals who had their money stolen from them. Social peace? So you're saying I should pay tribute to those who would rob me? Language and a cultural heritage? Are you kidding? Those arise by themselves. They are a byproduct of society - why should I pay the government for something that costs nothing to use, and they haven't created?

Quote:
The same is true for taxes, sinces paying taxes is ruled by law as well - there is no difference between the codex of conduct called LAW there. So you recognize that people gave up on part of their money by being part of said society.
No, people have never consented to paying taxes. There's a difference between the implicit social contract not to kill or steal, and the law.

Quote:
If I have a bakery that is worked by hands I pay for their work, then ultimately said hands will bring part of their pay back to me because they MUST buy what I produce.
No - they could just never buy it. Owners of the means of production pay the costs (labour, etc) first, and then maybe make a profit later when people buy (if they buy). Workers are immediately rewarded for their costs in the forms of wages.

Also, isn't an "amendment" the same thing as a "change"?
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 08, 2010 08:25 PM

An example for an amendment:

constitution: All men are created equal.
amendment: Negroes are considered men.

Change of constitution? Not so.

For the rest, Mvass, you are a hopeless case - you see what you want to see, and you close your eyes before what you do not want to see. You are just as bad as Elodin.

Quote:
Education, protection, and the law? That was the government, not society. And, of course, it was financed by individuals who had their money stolen from them. Social peace? So you're saying I should pay tribute to those who would rob me? Language and a cultural heritage? Are you kidding? Those arise by themselves. They are a byproduct of society - why should I pay the government for something that costs nothing to use, and they haven't created?

The government is the executive and legislative arm of society - the head, you might say. It exists ONLY because there is a society. No one steals. Nothimng arises by themselves - if society was made of people like you there was none and nothing except individuals.

Quote:
No, people have never consented to paying taxes. There's a difference between the implicit social contract not to kill or steal, and the law.
There is no difference at all, and EVERYONE has given their consent - except that everyone claims they are somehow an exception when they breal the law or don't want to pay taxes. There is no difference whatsoever.

Quote:
No - they could just never buy it. Owners of the means of production pay the costs (labour, etc) first, and then maybe make a profit later when people buy (if they buy). Workers are immediately rewarded for their costs in the forms of wages.
Wrong. You cannot eat money, you cannot live and shelter in it, it doesn't spend warmth like trousers and a jacket... People MUST buy the things necessary to survive or die.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 08, 2010 10:08 PM

Quote:
An example for an amendment:

constitution: All men are created equal.
amendment: Negroes are considered men.

Change of constitution? Not so.
Bad example. How about this:

constitution: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof
amendment: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof

This is a clear change of what is in the Constitution.

Quote:
Nothimng arises by themselves - if society was made of people like you there was none and nothing except individuals.
Society is a mutually beneficial voluntary association of individuals. An individual recognises the right of others not to be killed in return for not being killed himself. The government is something separate from (and often opposed to) civil society. Sure, we are permitting it to do certain things - but that doesn't make it the head, but rather the opposite.

Quote:
EVERYONE has given their consent
None of the country's native citizens have ever given their consent - or were even asked it.

Quote:
People MUST buy the things necessary to survive or die.
I don't see how this contradicts what I said.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 08, 2010 10:54 PM

Quote:
Quote:
An example for an amendment:

constitution: All men are created equal.
amendment: Negroes are considered men.

Change of constitution? Not so.
Bad example. How about this:

constitution: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof
amendment: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof

This is a clear change of what is in the Constitution.
Agreed, that's no amendment, it's a change - it's in contradiction to the original constitution.

Quote:
Quote:
Nothimng arises by themselves - if society was made of people like you there was none and nothing except individuals.
Society is a mutually beneficial voluntary association of individuals. An individual recognises the right of others not to be killed in return for not being killed himself.
That's no society. Because you can recognize as much as you want, problem is, you have to back that up somehow. Game theory, remember? Firsst betrayer wins. And that's why this:
Quote:
The government is something separate from (and often opposed to) civil society. Sure, we are permitting it to do certain things - but that doesn't make it the head, but rather the opposite.
is just wrong: you need a rule change and you need enforcers.
Quote:

Quote:
EVERYONE has given their consent
None of the country's native citizens have ever given their consent - or were even asked it.
Oh, sure. Everyone can leave. Everyone can go to their congressman. Everyone can go to the court. Noone needs to vote. Everone can found a new party, the no-tax party, you can do whatever you want, not to pay taxes.
Quote:

Quote:
People MUST buy the things necessary to survive or die.
I don't see how this contradicts what I said.
Well, what DID you say?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
del_diablo
del_diablo


Legendary Hero
Manifest
posted July 09, 2010 12:08 AM

Quote:
Quote:
The government is something separate from (and often opposed to) civil society. Sure, we are permitting it to do certain things - but that doesn't make it the head, but rather the opposite.

is just wrong: you need a rule change and you need enforcers.


For the sake of playing thedeath: Well there is always anarchism, where the body does not have a head.
____________



 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Fauch
Fauch


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 09, 2010 03:24 AM
Edited by Fauch at 03:25, 09 Jul 2010.

actually he would have one. each body would have a head, in the contrary of totalitarianism, only one head to control everybody.

totalitarianism has been proven as an efficient way to create order. anarchy would also create order, except that people would create their own orders, instead of just following those of a chief.

it is possible, anarchy could lead to something close to athenian democracy, during the antiquity.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 15 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1187 seconds