- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Does it matter what the "Founders intentions" were?
Posted on 1/27/14 at 7:37 am to Patrick O Rly
Posted on 1/27/14 at 7:37 am to Patrick O Rly
quote:
I think it was the way we're meant to live.
Sounds great, but too many people gathered in large groups kind of put the kibash to that idea long ago.
0
Posted on 1/27/14 at 8:09 am to Bayou
quote:
The Constitution was drafted for the intent of a responsible citizenry. Incrementally, lefties have succeeded in turning our citizenry into an irresponsible sum. Do the math!
It's not The Constitution rather The People.
Spot on.
Much has been written by those pesky founders on the need of a citizenry to be educated,vigilant and participating in their own goverment from the local to the federal.
Until I see one better the Constitution is still a awe inspiring document.
Anarchist just a bit less inspired
quote:
, but too many people gathered in large groups kind of put the kibash to that idea long ago.
This post was edited on 1/27/14 at 8:15 am
Posted on 1/27/14 at 9:32 am to goatmilker
Reading this thread, I still havent figured out how anarchism can prevent organized groups with guns from taking the things you own.
Lets say you decided to band together with those near you to defend against organized groups of thieves. Would there not be certain rules to follow within this defense group? Would this not be a government?
You criticise on one hand the founders for writing a constitution that was flawed because it depended on people acting reasonably within its means. On the other hand you tout a way of life that is dependent on people acting more reasonably than they do now.
Thieves are thieves whether they are doing so with a pen or an AK-47.
Lets say you decided to band together with those near you to defend against organized groups of thieves. Would there not be certain rules to follow within this defense group? Would this not be a government?
You criticise on one hand the founders for writing a constitution that was flawed because it depended on people acting reasonably within its means. On the other hand you tout a way of life that is dependent on people acting more reasonably than they do now.
Thieves are thieves whether they are doing so with a pen or an AK-47.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 9:41 am to bamafan1001
I enjoyed reading this thread but found just what I expected coming from a anarchist. And sorry paddy...anarchist are not who I go to in my debates and conversations over the constitution. What anarchist think of it should surprise no one. They are anarchist and rules and regulations are not exactly their cup of tea.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 9:46 am to bamafan1001
quote:
Reading this thread, I still havent figured out how anarchism can prevent organized groups with guns from taking the things you own.
You would have access to weapons, and you could voluntarily corporate with those you live near to coordinate security, and/or pay or call on a local security agency. Or you would have something completely different. I don't know. It wouldn't be my job to figure out how people do things, and that's kind of the whole point.
To put it in perspective, these isn't much now stopping people now from doing it. The police have a very low success rate for solving thefts/murders. They might respond in time. They might not. There really isn't an incentive for them to find the culprits. They do have incentives for pulling you over for speeding, and get federal money for drug bust.
In a voluntary system, the incentive would be to keep you as a customer. I don't want to rid the entirety of what government does. Some of these things we really need, but they should operate in a freed market, because I'm best protected that way. If I have no choice, and they can't lose me as a paying customer, then I will always be subject to abuse, and it just becomes a tool of whoever controls the government ie the rich/elite.
quote:
Lets say you decided to band together with those near you to defend against organized groups of thieves. Would there not be certain rules to follow within this defense group? Would this not be a government?
It would be self governance. It would voluntary. The group wouldn't force members to stay, or claim that people are members and demand tribute because they live next to them. If it did those things, it would be a government in the sense that we know it.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 9:53 am to Patrick O Rly
Whether it be a plan for government or a business plan, the quality of the results are still dependent on the quality of people in charge. The Constitution of the U.S. is an incredibly well written document but even the best plan requires interpretation over time as the working environment changes. The problem we have today is not sound interpretation of the Constitution but rather interpolation and even out right violation of the Constitution to suit the political agenda of usurpers.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 9:59 am to goatmilker
quote:
They are anarchist and rules and regulations are not exactly their cup of tea.
I'm not against rules. I'm against rulers deciding the rules, and make no mistake, that's how it's done. I don't believe the political process produces rules that reflect the public's wishes in any sense (and there's no homogeneous opinion in the public), because if it did, there's no way we'd have as many laws as we do now.
In short, it's a way for the rich to control the public, because public opinion and votes are so easily manipulated, and besides, they're the ones who choose who'll you'll vote for in the first place.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 10:03 am to bamafan1001
quote:
Reading this thread, I still havent figured out how anarchism can prevent organized groups with guns from taking the things you own.
Anarchy is not Chaos. When settlers moved West the villages they established were not immediately considered territories or states. Therefore, there was no law. But they did not live in a state of chaos.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 10:07 am to Zach
quote:
Anarchy is not Chaos. When settlers moved West the villages they established were not immediately considered territories or states. Therefore, there was no law. But they did not live in a state of chaos.
Right, and I wish people understood that. I'm not advocating chaos. That would be ridiculous.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 10:43 am to Patrick O Rly
Do you see any thing similar with anarchism and the communes of the 60's Paddy?
Posted on 1/27/14 at 11:10 am to goatmilker
Sure. Communism in it's simplest form is anarchism. I'm not a communist myself, but I have no problem with voluntary communism. State communism is an absolute horror though.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 1:34 pm to Patrick O Rly
I get that you arent advocating chaos, I just would argue that it could happen.
I can honestly say id take anarchy over where we are currently headed though.
I can honestly say id take anarchy over where we are currently headed though.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 1:47 pm to bamafan1001
quote:
I get that you arent advocating chaos, I just would argue that it could happen.
Did you mean "couldn't happen?" Yes, I would agree that it could not happen (at least wide spread) in our current world.
There are anarchist institutions that we're all apart of though, and I have argued that society wouldn't exist without anarchy, and an entity such as the state couldn't exist without it (because it's parasitic in nature). The difference between my view and that of most people is that I don't see the state as a necessary, complimentary part to the rest of society.
quote:
I can honestly say id take anarchy over where we are currently headed though.
Yeah. Authoritarian police states are no fun.
This post was edited on 1/27/14 at 1:55 pm
Posted on 1/27/14 at 2:10 pm to LongueCarabine
quote:
create rights out of thin air.
Meh, I think the 9th Amendment covers that.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 2:28 pm to Patrick O Rly
quote:
Authoritarian police states are no fun.
I absolutely agree with this sentiment, although (and we've had this discussion before)...if authoritarian police states are the extreme end of the government spectrum, then powerful mafia fiefdoms are the extreme end of the anarchist spectrum, and in my opinion, have the potential to be every bit as tyrannical and oppressive as any police state.
IMO the "correct" solution lies somewhere in the middle, with a very limited government 'peace keeping' branch, complete with real checks and balances - controlled by the citizenry- coupled with a strong respect for individual rights and right to self defense so that we are all responsible for our own security, to a certain degree.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 2:34 pm to Patrick O Rly
quote:
Patrick O Rly
Maybe I am just lazy when it comes to debates, but I have stopped trying to argue for voluntarism/ancap, especially on moral grounds. Those who are inclined to think this way will eventually find the literature that could 'convert' them.
It is far more likely for our kind of anarchism to arise out of the market than it is to convince people that they should think like us.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 2:34 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
I just cannot think of an effective business model for a private fire department.
This is a microcosm of the bigger picture here.
The fact is that ALL fire departments used to be privately run. That model proved to be inefficient, so they created publically run fire depts. Just because we can't remember a time when fire depts. were privately run doesn't mean we should return to that model.
Much like the anarchy/government debate. There was a time when there were no governments, but that model proved to be inefficient, so we created governments. There was a time when very little was regulated, but it was determined that we needed more regulation. Just because some of the regulation is excessive doesn't mean we need to get rid of all regulation.
But before the Constitution, there was this:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [Life, Liberty, the pursuit of Happiness], 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.
And these are the founders which agreed:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
John Hancock
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
Matthew Thornton
Posted on 1/27/14 at 2:42 pm to HempHead
quote:
It is far more likely for our kind of anarchism to arise out of the market than it is to convince people that they should think like us.
True. You have to show people something better.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 2:44 pm to Patrick O Rly
It's not much, but I am beginning an arbitration service for restaurants and their suppliers. Since they are already forced to pay (to some extent) for government arbitration, I have to keep costs very low and to provide a fairer and more efficient means of settling disputes.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News