Democrat Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes, Predictions

[JimC]

[Forty Two]

People who don't keep their front lawns trimmed and tidy (not a euphemism), or who leave their trash cans out days after collection, or who use their drive as a workshop bring down the house prices of their neighbours, as a matter of public order they need to be removed from society.

Lawn care, trash collection and mechanical repairs are social constructs.

[Forty Two]

So, who decides the government has gone too far Seth, and removal by force is justified?

Seth and a bunch of right wing nut jobs. What could possibly go wrong?

Actually, that's correct, except it would be better phrased as Seth and everyone else. The notion of revolution and the "right" of the people to remove the government which has "gone too far" is ultimately one that is exercised, as a practical matter, at the peril of those who believe the government has gone too far. The concept was understood by the early American colonials/patriots who signed their names to things like the American Declaration of Independence. They declared their own right to throw off the bonds of a government which has committed offenses against the people; however, they knew full well that failure would mean that they'd be hanged, or worse, by the government they sought to overthrow.

That's the meaning behind a quote like "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots." - Thomas Jefferson. It doesn't mean that everybody who feels aggrieved is entitled to a new government. It means that the people have the duty to protect their own liberty, and stake their blood and treasure upon it. Act according to your conscience, but many who do so pay the ultimate price.

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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

None of that means that King George or any other government had to say "oh, well, geez - they say they're aggrieved, so I guess there is nothing I can do --they get a new government, because it's their right." Such a right must be fought for. The tyrant does not admit his tyranny, and does not go quietly.

And that's the reason for such quotes as Ben Franklin's "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." It means that by raising the specter of throwing off the government, a person commits what that government says is a capital offense. If you pull the trigger and miss, you will pay the ultimate price.

[Seth]

So, who decides the government has gone too far Seth, and removal by force is justified?

Seth and a bunch of right wing nut jobs. What could possibly go wrong?

Little, and much will go right.

[Seth]

I mean, that pimply-faced juvenile chucking a wheelie at the traffic lights must be a prime suspect for wanting to kill an innocent mum pushing a pram to the corner shop, even though we can't prove it right at the moment. Let's throw him into a cell, tell him we can keep him there for as long as we like, don't let him have any access to lawyers or family and don't say why he is being held. Sooner or later he'll confess and we may have saved the lives of two law-abiding citizens. History proves it works all the fucking time.

I'm all for that when it comes to traffic scofflaws who endanger others. Even if it doesn't teach them anything, as a matter of public safety and sanitation they need to be removed from society.

"Libertarian"

"Marxist"

[Seth]

Now you're just being silly...

Reductio ad absurdem...

Yes, I was, but there is a valid point underlying the silliness: Terrorist menaces do not justify giving up human rights and freedoms, especially given the small scale of terrorism in western democracies.

They justify removing all human rights protections from the terrorists and their co-conspirators and enablers. It's called "the law of warfare."

[Forty Two]

[Tero]

The more people there are, the more government there will be. We now know every square mile of the planet, on the surface. And cintrol it. Quit reproducing or have a nice epidemic. Then we can have a frontier again.

[Sean Hayden]

It's going to happen Tero. Our luck can't hold forever.

[pErvinalia]

I mean, that pimply-faced juvenile chucking a wheelie at the traffic lights must be a prime suspect for wanting to kill an innocent mum pushing a pram to the corner shop, even though we can't prove it right at the moment. Let's throw him into a cell, tell him we can keep him there for as long as we like, don't let him have any access to lawyers or family and don't say why he is being held. Sooner or later he'll confess and we may have saved the lives of two law-abiding citizens. History proves it works all the fucking time.

I'm all for that when it comes to traffic scofflaws who endanger others. Even if it doesn't teach them anything, as a matter of public safety and sanitation they need to be removed from society.

"Libertarian"

"Marxist"

You don't even understand the logic of what's going on. You claim to be a libertarian, that's why I put it in air quotes. I don't claim to be a Marxist, so your reply is a total non sequitur, as is not infrequently the case with your replies.

[pErvinalia]

Now you're just being silly...

Reductio ad absurdem...

Yes, I was, but there is a valid point underlying the silliness: Terrorist menaces do not justify giving up human rights and freedoms, especially given the small scale of terrorism in western democracies.

They justify removing all human rights protections from the terrorists and their co-conspirators and enablers. It's called "the law of warfare."

How do you know they are terrorists if there hasn't been a trial? As I keep saying: "Libertarian". You are a massive Statist.

[JimC]

The government may have enough credible evidence that an individual has sworn allegiance to ISIS (or some other clear indication of being a committed jihadist), without having enough evidence to obtain a conviction. That's where preventive detention (which could well save future lives) is a reasonable option, as long as it is subject to judicial oversight and review...

[pErvinalia]

That's definitely an argument that can be had by non-ideological people. But when an alleged libertarian keeps siding with the state over the individual, all one can do is point out the hypocrisy with a "Libertarian"...

[Tero]

Chelsea talking now. Something about Elmo. I think Hillary will give Elmos to every two year old.

[JimC]

"Fondle me Elmo"?