• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Is the 14th Amendment dangerous to liberty?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
I want to know what states are on the virge of becoming a theocracy? That is a joke, right? What religious figure other than a muslum would suggest such a thing?

Have you been watching Million Man March Reruns???

The purpose of the United States is so that people would be free to believe whatever they want without interference from the government, State, or sovreign. So in a society with these very strong beliefs how does a theocracy form or exist? Better yet, why should you fear a few people that are assembled together peacefully in their own beliefs?

As far as religious thoughts go, there is one central theme in the bible. "There must be opposition in all things." If one side fears the creation of a Oligarchy while someone else fear the creation of a godless society. You see a Godless society has been tried also, it is called communism, or socialism. When it comes down to it, any group that tries to suppress the freedom of another group is Facist in nature, whether it is Kingdom, or any other form of government with absolute power. Power corrupts absolutely.

We, the people . . . . know this already.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,376
3,499
126
I want to know what states are on the virge of becoming a theocracy? That is a joke, right? What religious figure other than a muslum would suggest such a thing?

Have you been watching Million Man March Reruns???

The purpose of the United States is so that people would be free to believe whatever they want without interference from the government, State, or sovreign. So in a society with these very strong beliefs how does a theocracy form or exist? Better yet, why should you fear a few people that are assembled together peacefully in their own beliefs?

As far as religious thoughts go, there is one central theme in the bible. "There must be opposition in all things." If one side fears the creation of a Oligarchy while someone else fear the creation of a godless society. You see a Godless society has been tried also, it is called communism, or socialism. When it comes down to it, any group that tries to suppress the freedom of another group is Facist in nature, whether it is Kingdom, or any other form of government with absolute power. Power corrupts absolutely.

We, the people . . . . know this already.
Wrong thread? :\
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
The Founder of this nation said that Virginia was his country.

Anyways, I don't like nationalized democracy because, to quote the Founder again, "a democracy is nothing more than mob rule where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."[/quotes]

Fair enough, I guess...that's the danger of a democracy without rules protecting minority rights (which we have at both a state and federal level, so I don't know what you're complaining about). But that danger is equally present at the state level...enshrining states' rights does NOTHING to protect against the tyranny of the majority. In fact, it's federalism that protected minority rights in many states during the civil rights movement. The states were run by racist assholes who I don't think exemplify the best of democracy...or a good example of why states' rights are the best possible ideal.

Again, a state is just as able to be "too big" as a federal government. If you want to argue for limited government, fine. But handing power to a huge government in your state capital doesn't seem to be a huge improvement to handing power to the government in Washington DC. States' rights is treated as a magical cure for overreaching government, but there are plenty of examples where that's obviously not the case.

Do they? Big cities tend to be a lot alike no matter where you go, as do rural areas. I'm not sure Dallas and New York City are farther apart than Dallas and Bug Dick, Texas.

In any case, my problem with states being totally independent still stands. If I'm a citizen of the United States, shouldn't I have at least SOME say as to what goes on in Texas? After all, I can move there and become a citizen of THAT state with no official approval. Does it really make sense to argue that Texas is for Texans when it's so easy to join or leave that particular group?

The problem with relying on the founders for every bit of wisdom is that they lived in a MUCH different time than we do. In their day, states really WERE dramatically different from each other, and the whole reason we had to try twice to get a United States at all was because everyone identified with their home state and treated every other state like a foreign country. The nation was founded on the idea that Virginia and Maryland were more like Germany and France than anything else.

That's not the case any more, even in states like Texas that loudly and obnoxiously proclaim their independence. I've lived in 7 states since I was born, and payed taxes in 4 of them...and I'm by no means unusual in that regard. States governing themselves might sound appealing, but it's not realistic given how interconnected we all are.
Taxes will be lower if things were done at the state level, so people who want centralized welfare shouldn't have a say about Texas if they don't live in Texas.

As for living in a different time and conditions than the founders, there's no excuse for not living in the same conditions that the Founders did. Keep in mind decentralization works fine. There are no examples of it not working fine before Lincoln, so it would work fine if it were allowed again.

You have point about racism in the states, but then the Federal Government dealt with it far more tyrannically than the states did. I don't think states have a right to discriminate in the public sector, but I do think If States' rights had been followed, then laws requiring business to discriminate would've been democratically overturned in those states and then no central law would've been made requiring individuals not to discriminate.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,376
3,499
126
Taxes will be lower if things were done at the state level, so people who want centralized welfare shouldn't have a say about Texas if they don't live in Texas.

As for living in a different time and conditions than the founders, there's no excuse for not living in the same conditions that the Founders did. Keep in mind decentralization works fine. There are no examples of it not working fine before Lincoln, so it would work fine if it were allowed again.

You have point about racism in the states, but then the Federal Government dealt with it far more tyrannically than the states did. I don't think states have a right to discriminate in the public sector, but I do think If States' rights had been followed, then laws requiring business to discriminate would've been democratically overturned in those states and then no central law would've been made requiring individuals not to discriminate.
Take off your Rose Coloured Blinders. There has never been a Time when things were fine. There never will be a Time when everything is fine. Things change, Issues come up, always.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
I'm starting to wonder if the OP came up with a long list of threads...each one with the same theme (big government in america bad/little to no government good) and he just trickles them out over time. Kinda like DeBeers does with the diamond supply.
 

bl4ckfl4g

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2007
3,669
0
0
i want to know what states are on the virge of becoming a theocracy? That is a joke, right? What religious figure other than a muslum would suggest such a thing?

Have you been watching million man march reruns???

The purpose of the united states is so that people would be free to believe whatever they want without interference from the government, state, or sovreign. So in a society with these very strong beliefs how does a theocracy form or exist? Better yet, why should you fear a few people that are assembled together peacefully in their own beliefs?

As far as religious thoughts go, there is one central theme in the bible. "there must be opposition in all things." if one side fears the creation of a oligarchy while someone else fear the creation of a godless society. You see a godless society has been tried also, it is called communism, or socialism. When it comes down to it, any group that tries to suppress the freedom of another group is facist in nature, whether it is kingdom, or any other form of government with absolute power. Power corrupts absolutely.

We, the people . . . . Know this already.
utah
 

bl4ckfl4g

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2007
3,669
0
0
Um yeah, no. Maybe 100 years ago that was true, definitely not today.
Well I was there a few months ago and they sure like to regulate alcohol and bars for religious reasons. It is closer to a theocracy than any other state.
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,264
109
106
Well I was there a few months ago and they sure like to regulate alcohol and bars for religious reasons. It is closer to a theocracy than any other state.
Closer than any other state, Yeah, I'll give you that. However, if anything, it is moving away from being a theocracy. The mormon church really does take a "hands off" approach to politics. They very rarely get involved in any sort of political issue. The strict bar/alcohol laws are the result of individual members actions and not so much direct church involvement.
 
Last edited:

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
9
0
I'm not against women's suffrage, I just think the states should be able to decide who votes. I don't like nationalized democracy. I think that if MA wants to prohibit males from voting, then that's fine. Personally, if I were a state legislator, I would make a failed attempt at pushing legislation through to not have anyone but Ron Paul on VA's Presidential ballots in 2012.
LOL... do you also support allowing states to count a certain group of people for 3/5 of a vote?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY