Toe-may-toe or Tah-mah-toe?

Post #29,115 by Brandioch 2/20/02 4:12:39 PM Reply	Toe-may-toe or Tah-mah-toe? But the problem with historical labeling, such as that, is that "liberal" ideas become "conservative" values. I'd prefer a labeling system based upon something other than historical criteria. Such as "liberal" equating to more personal freedom (the extreme being "anarchy" with no governmental controls over the individual's behaviour). Of course, "conservative" would have to stand for something other than more individual restrictions. Not to mention corporations and such and their "rights"/responsibilities. For example, the existing liberal/conservative dichotomy is flawed regarding personal rights. Take gun control. Traditionally a "liberal" cause. It seeks to limit the rights of individuals that they currently enjoy. While "conservatives" seek to ensure that right. I think a spectrum would be best. Individual's rights............ Individual's responsibilities.......... Societ's rights........... Societ's responsibilities......... and so on.
Post #29,124 by screamer 2/20/02 6:01:28 PM Reply	You say "arms" and I say "nukes"... Not to get too crazy with this, but the actual "right" is to keep and bear "arms". Not such a "liberal" notion given the times it was written... If you didn't hunt, you may starve. The strict interpretation of this "right" would mean that I could bear "any damned arm" I please, including a tank, a flame thrower, cruise missile, nukes, etc... While this would probably come in handy on the freeway sometimes, I don't necessarily think that this was what the framers of the thing foresaw... I could be wrong. Moreover, I don't give a solid rat's ass what the "framers" foresaw if you try and tell me that it's good for a civilized society to walk around with holsters and ouzi's... And in the same liberal spirit, given the First Amendment, I should be free to pray anywhere I please, including a public school. And I should be free to pray to whatever I want to in public. I should be free to say fuck on TV and to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Seriously. There is no qualification. It says "Congress shall make NO law"... This is guaranteed to me in the First... So therein lies the rub with me. We, as a society, either need to encase this precious document in glass and start praying to it, or to continue to edit/repeal/repent or do whatever is in "we the people's" power to make it apply to the needs of the current century/era. I personally would prefer that we choose to keep trying to improve. And what we need to stop doing is using it like a fundamentalist preacher trying to prove "his" point by selecting on the parts that suit his needs - and omitting the rest. We need to decide in a binary fashion (;-) - IS IT STATIC AND SACRED, OR IS IT A STARTING POINT... I think a lot of arguments could be stopped before they got started if we'd just determine this. Again, I could be mistaken. I went through all of that to tell you that I really like your idea of creating a new system of labels based on where a person leans on a Societal/Individual rights and responsibilities scale. It's a good starting point. Consider this the preface to the Danifesto... Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #29,126 by Brandioch 2/20/02 6:45:12 PM Reply	Nuke 'em 'till they glow. That's why I said the extreme end of personal rights is anarchy. Not such a "liberal" notion given the times it was written... If you didn't hunt, you may starve. I always thought it was so the government couldn't oppress the citizens via firepower. But that doesn't matter. We have the right to keep and bear arms, today. Adding the right to have nukes would be an increase in personal rights. Moreover, I don't give a solid rat's ass what the "framers" foresaw if you try and tell me that it's good for a civilized society to walk around with holsters and ouzi's... When they were first introduced, tommy guns were available to ANYONE. You could even get them via mailorder. We now have fewer rights than we did then (regarding gun ownership). What did we get when we lost those rights? And in the same liberal spirit, given the First Amendment, I should be free to pray anywhere I please, including a public school. And you can. Try it. And I should be free to pray to whatever I want to in public. And you can. Try it. I should be free to say fuck on TV and to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. "Fuck" on HBO (etc) and "fire" if there is, in fact, a fire that people need to be warned of. They only get annoyed when you cause a panic. Read my post again. Notice the part about Society's rights? Yelling "fire" when there isn't one can cause a panic which infringes upon society's rights. We, as a society, either need to encase this precious document in glass and start praying to it, or to continue to edit/repeal/repent or do whatever is in "we the people's" power to make it apply to the needs of the current century/era. And it doesn't apply how? I don't see anything that needs to be changed in the Constitution/Bill of Rights/etc. New laws can handle new technologies easier than risking the basis of our government. We need to decide in a binary fashion (;-) - IS IT STATIC AND SACRED, OR IS IT A STARTING POINT... I think a lot of arguments could be stopped before they got started if we'd just determine this. I think most people see it as a starting point. But when it is a starting point, do you move forward or backward? Do you add rights or do you remove rights? Thanks for your support. I think it would be easier to discuss some of these issues if we can look at them one a rights/responsibilities and individual/society/whatever continuum. In fact, it then becomes a question of what specific responsibilities you are willing to accept for specific rights (both individual and societal). For a specific instance, gun control. We can move beyond "gun control is Fascist!" or "gun control saves children!" Instead, we can look at what responsibilities gun ownership entails for the individual and what society's rights/responsibilities are regarding gun owning individuals.
Post #29,144 by screamer 2/20/02 10:28:18 PM Reply	It is all a matter of degrees isn't it. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to bitch. I guess that it is necessary to move somewhere east or west of anarchy, but I think my biggest problem is with just "who decides" and are they being influenced by altruistic societal interests or by the prevailing political wind. Just from your posts here, over the years, I know that you too are keenly interested in America's War on Itself... The usurping of individual rights to the collective has been a steady process through most of my adult life and you are correct, I don't expect that I will be given any additional priviledges, as much as I want to "clear the road" with two trucks doing .0111834 MPH difference with my personal hood mounted LAW... I know it's no big secret to you, but I have very little confidence in our system of checks and balances or in the altruism of the Congress, the White House or the Supreme Court. I'm not paranoid enough to think there is a vast conspiracy and based on my experience with the government, I doubt that they could ever coordinate such a major conspiracy. :-) I am disappointed though. I am now getting old enough (2 score) to realize that very little actually changes and that true political change seems to move at a glacial pace. In a sick way, though, I still have hope. Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #29,151 by Ashton 2/20/02 11:57:42 PM Reply	Unless you think Shakespeare missed something important (?) ought you to be surprised at the repetitive nature of human folly.. or more recently, B. Russell's little cartoon + quip, Since the beginning man has never refrained from any folly of which he is capable. Upthread a bit - we have The Ox's link to a nicely iconoclastic description of how we've Bowdlerized even our concept of male/female and built a culture to prevent anyone from realizing just how screwed up we are - on the most basic of levels. (Hey! at least the lady had the balls to take a shot at Mr. M. Chauvinist Pig hisself! Oughtta be worth as many kudos as the Rambo icon, no?). Checks & Balances. Pondered that one. Given the (obviously declining) attention span du jour, the equally declining individual experience of ever reading.. a variety of 'histories'? and other retrograde indications: Why would you imagine that 'checks & balances' are anything other than .. Me! and Thee! regurgitating the Obvious, to the Unwilling and often comatose... however ineptly, given we aren't Will S. or Bertie R. ?? WE = new people all the time! ARE ALL we ever get of Checks & Balances. Fall asleep for too large a % of a generation, and what you get are: A Scalia, a Rhenquist; a Dan Quayle, a Dubya ... and recently: GOVERNMENT er "Faith-Based" subsidies and a Calvinist Ashcroft - offended at a STATUE !! (maybe if he has 2 kids, he's fucked twice - and still regrets the shameful experience with such a Godless harlot who would permit it. Oh the Evil Temptress!) There will be no Final Solution to the forgetfulness of our species; ditto IMHO - no one has yet collected better ingredients for living despite our idiocies: than the US Constitution, product of prodigious minds AND hearts. We are all Sisyphus here. Best get ready pushing that stone Up the hill from whence it rolled.. in response to the debilitating effects of the Least Common Denominator of homo-saps: the Bone-lazy Opportunist, driven by puerile greed. Toil + cheers, Ashton
Post #29,189 by screamer 2/21/02 9:57:10 AM Reply	So, is ya a Libreel or ain't ya? Sound and fury. Walking shadows... You even threw in Ecclesiastes for me up above in yonder threads... I spose your favorite movies are "The World According to Garp" and "Harold and Maude"? Two of mine... I posted to this thread merely to get the opportunity to bring up the name Adlai Stevenson, someone who died when I was 4, but I've admired for as long as I can remember. The Danofesto is will need a few more years while I try and sort out what I "really" think. In the meantime, I just try and plagarize some of your festos? K? Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #29,221 by Brandioch 2/21/02 11:41:43 AM Reply	"Altruism"? You make me laugh! I know it's no big secret to you, but I have very little confidence in our system of checks and balances or in the altruism of the Congress, the White House or the Supreme Court. The same lack of confidence was enshrined in our Constitution. The government will, because of human nature, seek to control every aspect of people's lives and remove every personal freedom. Now, the only way I can see to stop this is to cut through the rhetoric and jingo and blah words that pass for "political discussion". If we can take each right / responsibility apart to its basic components, we can have an actual DISCUSSION. We can also illustrate how the rights and responsibilities of the individual and the society are linked. I'm not paranoid enough to think there is a vast conspiracy and based on my experience with the government, I doubt that they could ever coordinate such a major conspiracy. No real conspiracy. Just human nature. People with a psychological need to control others finding their way into governmental positions. And the cycle continues. The rights we lose through bureaucracy will only be regained through revolution. Or, there MIGHT be another way. >IF< enough people are educated on the process and willing to put the effort in, the laws removing the rights can be repealed. The rights can be codified. The only problem I see is that the process will take actual effort. Effort spent >THINKING< instead of restating current slogans. Effort spent writing the laws and pushing them through the legal system. The sheep will believe whatever tripe is fed to them by the government (populated by people seeking to take their rights). Well, they'll believe it as long as they can be kept warm, fat and happy (ignorance is bliss). And, yes, most people are sheep who can't even name their congress-critters. I won't even go into world history or even US history or international politics. Jingoism appeals to emotions. Discussion appeals to intellect. We can change the situation. If we want to and if we have the dedication to do so. Or we can sit back and let whatever will happen, happen.
Post #29,687 by Ashton 2/25/02 9:32:59 PM Reply	The Founding Mothers were so prescient that, they anticipated your last conclusion! and enshrined it for all time, in the pithy sentence Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. Whenever we forget the regular, unfailing 'action' implicit in that principle - we'll trade citizenship for the label consumer; replace vigilance... with indifference, shopping and - Tee Vee infotainment. The Watchtower (religious) Society got One thing right, *Awake!*

Welcome to IWETHEY!