Personal Liberty vs State Power

[Farang]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ in a true democracy there is no executive, the people vote on everything.

I addressed this. Your argument is refuted because moral underpinning isn't necessary, only a system of checks and balances as we have. That is my point.

You haven't refuted anything, you just tried to change the basis of my arguement in such a way as to make it invalid.

What I said holds true, without a moral underpinning a democracy is nothing more than mob rule (as Jefferson said)

I'm not trying to change the basis of your argument. I'm saying an alternative solution to the problem presented in your example is a system of checks and balances, rather than the need to inject any kind of moral underpinning into the democracy.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ in a true democracy there is no executive, the people vote on everything.

I addressed this. Your argument is refuted because moral underpinning isn't necessary, only a system of checks and balances as we have. That is my point.

The checks and balances go out the door when the state loses its moral compass. A classic example of this is Nazi Germany. Germany was a republic where the people allowed the moral compass to go out the door in order to achieve a sense of protection and nationalism. If the state was held to a moral standard like it should. Those national socialist thugs would have been tossed out the door and into a prison where they belonged.

And dont act like if the state is given free reign from moral standards in this country to it wont try to abuse it. We have already witnessed the executive branch trying to toss a captured US citizen on the battlefield denying them due process in our court of law. While the scumbag deserves to hang in the gallows. He also deserves his right to defend himself under our constitution. A more distant example is locking up US citizens in WWII for the crime of being from Japanese heritage.

Nazi Germany dropped its checks and balances in the name of total submission to a dictator. This is the fault of the democracy not being stable or mature enough to handle a man such as Hitler. I believe Hitler's tactics would not have worked in the United States (let's be serious about this argument now, the Reichstag/9-11 comparison withstanding an American dictator would not emerge as he did). The example of terror suspects at the end of your reply is currently going through said system of checks and balances. Locking up of US citizens during World War II shows that our current system of checks is not perfect, and can occasionally be subject to abuse during times of distress. In it's defense, these abuses was later apologized for by our system.

As far as abuses go, however, I'd say our system has a decent record domestically.

And I'd just like to halt this argument for a moment because I'm confused.. where do these moral principles come form? Who enforces them? These atrocities you speak of come precisely because the moral standard is shifted to allow for them.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Farang

Nazi Germany dropped its checks and balances in the name of total submission to a dictator. This is the fault of the democracy not being stable or mature enough to handle a man such as Hitler. I believe Hitler's tactics would not have worked in the United States (let's be serious about this argument now, the Reichstag/9-11 comparison withstanding an American dictator would not emerge as he did). The example of terror suspects at the end of your reply is currently going through said system of checks and balances. Locking up of US citizens during World War II shows that our current system of checks is not perfect, and can occasionally be subject to abuse during times of distress. In it's defense, these abuses was later apologized for by our system.

As far as abuses go, however, I'd say our system has a decent record domestically.

And I'd just like to halt this argument for a moment because I'm confused.. where do these moral principles come form? Who enforces them? These atrocities you speak of come precisely because the moral standard is shifted to allow for them.

Where were the 'checks and balances' when the state decided it should have first crack at my paycheck, and 'withhold' about 25% of it each month? My signifcant other doesn't even have that much control over my financial life.

If you believe in the fiction that other people can have legitimate authority over your decisions, governed by an equally fictional 'rule of law,' then the existence of 'checks and balances' is patently absurd. Once you believe that others have a 'right to rule' you, the state will cook you, your children and your grandchildren slowly in a pot of water, until there is nothing left of you, and you essentially become a shell of a man/woman, confused and mentally tortured.

That is mainly what I see today. People who are tortured by a tax system in tandem with enormous amounts of debt. And all the while, they line the streets supporting the very politicians that are literally raping them every day. It is very sad, and actually sickening to watch. People today are self enslaved by a system that has manipulated them from day 1.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Farang
People, as in the general population, are not smart enough for personal liberty. There must be people above in authority and people below to be commanded, with the interests of the state of the supreme interest of all individuals.

How is that even possible? Who decides who is "smart enough"? What is the standard for that? I think everyone can grasp the rule of personal liberty. Do what you want, just don't harm anyone else. Its not rocket science.

 

[MovingTarget]

Personal liberty should trump state power everytime personal liberty affects people other than one's own person. The whole point of social contract (i.e. governments) is to protect the rights of people against infringement by others. As long as what you do does not affect your neighbor, the state has no business sticking its nose in.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Farang

Nazi Germany dropped its checks and balances in the name of total submission to a dictator. This is the fault of the democracy not being stable or mature enough to handle a man such as Hitler. I believe Hitler's tactics would not have worked in the United States (let's be serious about this argument now, the Reichstag/9-11 comparison withstanding an American dictator would not emerge as he did). The example of terror suspects at the end of your reply is currently going through said system of checks and balances. Locking up of US citizens during World War II shows that our current system of checks is not perfect, and can occasionally be subject to abuse during times of distress. In it's defense, these abuses was later apologized for by our system.

As far as abuses go, however, I'd say our system has a decent record domestically.

And I'd just like to halt this argument for a moment because I'm confused.. where do these moral principles come form? Who enforces them? These atrocities you speak of come precisely because the moral standard is shifted to allow for them.

Where were the 'checks and balances' when the state decided it should have first crack at my paycheck, and 'withhold' about 25% of it each month? My signifcant other doesn't even have that much control over my financial life.

If you believe in the fiction that other people can have legitimate authority over your decisions, governed by an equally fictional 'rule of law,' then the existence of 'checks and balances' is patently absurd. Once you believe that others have a 'right to rule' you, the state will cook you, your children and your grandchildren slowly in a pot of water, until there is nothing left of you, and you essentially become a shell of a man/woman, confused and mentally tortured.

That is mainly what I see today. People who are tortured by a tax system in tandem with enormous amounts of debt. And all the while, they line the streets supporting the very politicians that are literally raping them every day. It is very sad, and actually sickening to watch. People today are self enslaved by a system that has manipulated them from day 1.

QFT

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Personal liberty should trump state power everytime personal liberty affects people other than one's own person. The whole point of social contract (i.e. governments) is to protect the rights of people against infringement by others. As long as what you do does not affect your neighbor, the state has no business sticking its nose in.

Agreed, it seems our government has forgotten its Republic roots

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Farang

Nazi Germany dropped its checks and balances in the name of total submission to a dictator. This is the fault of the democracy not being stable or mature enough to handle a man such as Hitler. I believe Hitler's tactics would not have worked in the United States (let's be serious about this argument now, the Reichstag/9-11 comparison withstanding an American dictator would not emerge as he did). The example of terror suspects at the end of your reply is currently going through said system of checks and balances. Locking up of US citizens during World War II shows that our current system of checks is not perfect, and can occasionally be subject to abuse during times of distress. In it's defense, these abuses was later apologized for by our system.

As far as abuses go, however, I'd say our system has a decent record domestically.

And I'd just like to halt this argument for a moment because I'm confused.. where do these moral principles come form? Who enforces them? These atrocities you speak of come precisely because the moral standard is shifted to allow for them.

Where were the 'checks and balances' when the state decided it should have first crack at my paycheck, and 'withhold' about 25% of it each month? My signifcant other doesn't even have that much control over my financial life.

If you believe in the fiction that other people can have legitimate authority over your decisions, governed by an equally fictional 'rule of law,' then the existence of 'checks and balances' is patently absurd. Once you believe that others have a 'right to rule' you, the state will cook you, your children and your grandchildren slowly in a pot of water, until there is nothing left of you, and you essentially become a shell of a man/woman, confused and mentally tortured.

That is mainly what I see today. People who are tortured by a tax system in tandem with enormous amounts of debt. And all the while, they line the streets supporting the very politicians that are literally raping them every day. It is very sad, and actually sickening to watch. People today are self enslaved by a system that has manipulated them from day 1.

The people living within the boundaries of the country you live in decided the government needed that 25% from your paycheck to pay for the roads you use to drive to work, the funding for the college you may have attended, and military protection required from other organized militarizes of the world, the protection which has been proven needed countless times throughout history.

Your stance, from what I've seen in this thread, seems to be in support of anarchy. I disagree. I don't believe anarchy is possible. Remove government and you'll have gangs controlling local areas with no oversight, with vigilante justice. Out of this chaos will evolve rudimentary forms of government, completely undemocratic until thousands of years of history return them to being so. Our current system of government has evolved out of anarchism and will continue to evolve.. live with the evil of an organization (the government) that has authority over you, but get a vote with your fellow citizens over how that government should act. Seems a reasonable solution to me.

 

[Braznor]

A system of checks and balances will gravitate towards the exploitation of the same system. It's easy for clever men to find loopholes in every tier of law. Therefore such a system is doomed to increasing levels of abuse of power, depending only upon the selfish judgment of that particular individual in power. A corrupt politician can make a career out of doing favors for interested parties wishing to exploiting the system and they apparently do.

A system built around to control the worst qualities of the rulers will ultimately replicate the same qualities in itself.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Braznor
A system of checks and balances will gravitate towards the exploitation of the same system. It's easy for clever men to find loopholes in every tier of law. Therefore such a system is doomed to increasing levels of abuse of power, depending only upon the selfish judgment of that particular individual in power. A corrupt politician can make a career out of doing favors for interested parties wishing to exploiting the system and they apparently do.

A system built around to evade the worst qualities of the rulers will ultimately be doomed to fail.

I disagree. A system of checks and balances will not lead to 'clever men finding loopholes,' rather it will lead to those loopholes slowly being closed. Abused power is recognized, checked, and corrected. It is a never ending process, sure, and that is the reason for many people's negative view of the system. They see the current abuses and highlight them as the reason of its failure. But the beauty of this system is that it is constantly correcting itself.

Your last statement makes little sense to me. A system built to evade the worst qualities of the rulers is doomed? How do you suggest we proceed, then? We reward the worst qualities of the rulers? We ignore them?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Farang

I disagree. A system of checks and balances will not lead to 'clever men finding loopholes,' rather it will lead to those loopholes slowly being closed. Abused power is recognized, checked, and corrected. It is a never ending process, sure, and that is the reason for many people's negative view of the system. They see the current abuses and highlight them as the reason of its failure. But the beauty of this system is that it is constantly correcting itself.

Why do you think Washington is filled with lawyers? To find loopholes in Law. So that men with an agenda can achieve whatever fantasy they wish. The founders recognized evil within men and set up a Republic instead of a Democracy for that sole reason. Men in their quest for power would trample on others using any means necessary, therefore government power was intentionally limited.

I do agree that in the end there is a *chance* that it will be rectified but not all the time. Because if it were corrected each and every time, we would still be a Republic and government would fulfill its only task of protecting individual freedoms.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Farang

The people living within the boundaries of the country you live in decided the government needed that 25% from your paycheck to pay for the roads you use to drive to work, the funding for the college you may have attended, and military protection required from other organized militarizes of the world, the protection which has been proven needed countless times throughout history.

Only a fraction of that money goes to roads. As for the military, that is now used to fight useless wars at the tune of billions of dollars a day. A military that only defended the borders would cost a tiny fraction of what it costs now. The truth of the matter is that these so-called 'super necessary' services that the government provides are rather irrelevant. It wouldn't cost half the nation's income to fund them, even IF there was no other way to provide for them except for some stupid, bureaucratic form of government. And long before the government confiscated 50-60% of the nation's wealth, these things were still provided for. Every single one.

99.99% believe in political fantasies that their parents and people like you told them from a very young age. I have no problem being in a small minority. BTW, that 25% is just the beginning of the taxes. Fortunately for me though, I'm on a path that will allow me to pay only a small percentage of my total wealth in taxes.

Your stance, from what I've seen in this thread, seems to be in support of anarchy. I disagree. I don't believe anarchy is possible. Remove government and you'll have gangs controlling local areas with no oversight, with vigilante justice.

If that's what it would devolve into, and if that is what people really wanted, what would have kept them from voting for it already? If voting represents the 'people,' and that was their true desire, then we would already have that. You really do not control anyone by voting, people ultimately do what they want to do.

Here is a question: what is the #1 way to manipulate someone almost anywhere in the world? The 'Law.' This is simply because the 'Law' has no objective meaning anywhere in the world. It's interpretation has to be decided by whoever is to interpret it. It is made up in someone's or a group of people's heads. And of course those who 'legislate,' interpret and enforce the law continuously 'legislate,' interpret and enforce the 'law,' in their own favor. And now they claim that their actions are synonymous with justice itself! That's why they call themselves Supreme Court 'justices' and they call it the 'justice' system. The process has become justice, regardless of the outcome, which of course in many cases is highly suspect of being 'justice' at all. In any event, the 'law' in almost country now is so complex, contradictory and absurd, people have to pay lawyers hundreds of dollars an hour to use it to manipulate the system in their favor.

Furthermore, in spite of thousands of years of completely made up political philosophy, there is no objective reason to obey the commands of those who claim to be the interpreters, and enforcers of such 'laws.' In the case of democracy, there is no objective reason why I should listen to someone simply because other people engaged in the ritualistic act of 'voting' for that person in an 'election.'

 

[Farang]

Dissipate, again I say you are an anarchist. Fine, but I believe your philosophy to be flawed. You offer up a criticism of our submission to man-made laws, how these laws are merely tools for control, and how there is no reason to obey to authority of another man. What you don't offer is an alternative. As humans we have to deal with one another, and naturally this results in conflicts. Conflicts result in consolidation of power. You want to criticize a system where this power is at least open to be manipulated by any member of a society, fine, but give me an alternative while you do it or I don't see the point to your words.

PC Surgeon, you're upset your political ideology is not being implemented in government. Solution? Form a political organization strong enough to overcome the current system. Win over public opinion. The process is open for you to do that. Is it because big evil corporate fat cats control everything? Become a fat cat. Control your message. The problem with libertarians, and I am one, is that we tend to have the idea that 'if only I could snap my fingers. . . ' The fact is the majority of people reject your ideas. That is democracy in action.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: Farang


I disagree. A system of checks and balances will not lead to 'clever men finding loopholes,' rather it will lead to those loopholes slowly being closed. Abused power is recognized, checked, and corrected. It is a never ending process, sure, and that is the reason for many people's negative view of the system. They see the current abuses and highlight them as the reason of its failure. But the beauty of this system is that it is constantly correcting itself.

The lobbyists in our countries. the special interests groups and the candidates willing to whore their souls to their contributers (on either side of the political spectrum) are indications of the flaws of the system of checks and balances. This system only works when there is intense scrutiny. But when the tools of observation (the media, thinktanks etc.) themselves become corrupt i.e have vested interests with those in power or partisan, the system is doomed to fail as it is happening today.

Survival of such a system will need a strict level of morality to be sustained by those in power. In your country and mine, we have the constitution to serve that purpose, a charter which imposes rights and duties on both the state as well as the citizen to aspire towards.

Originally posted by: Farang
Your last statement makes little sense to me. A system built to evade the worst qualities of the rulers is doomed? How do you suggest we proceed, then? We reward the worst qualities of the rulers? We ignore them?

Abuse of power can be construed as a negative quality of those in the administration. When a system is simply built on the concept of 'checks and balances' i.e preventing the abuse of power, obviously it is doomed to fail as forces trying to bring about the subversion of that intent will eventually arise during the course of time.

Checks and balances are a requisition of any organized system to survive. But it isn't the only one.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Farang

PC Surgeon, you're upset your political ideology is not being implemented in government. Solution? Form a political organization strong enough to overcome the current system. Win over public opinion. The process is open for you to do that. Is it because big evil corporate fat cats control everything? Become a fat cat. Control your message. The problem with libertarians, and I am one, is that we tend to have the idea that 'if only I could snap my fingers. . . ' The fact is the majority of people reject your ideas. That is democracy in action.

This is the point. This is not supposed to be a Democracy, but rather, a Republic. So those that are the "majority" don't matter. They have the same freedoms as me and that cannot be changed. Unfortunately, the Republic I speak of was dissolved by the "evil" in men that I spoke of earlier. Maybe you don't believe that this government can be hoodwinked into becoming something it wasn't meant to be. History of our country has shown that theory not to be true.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Farang
Dissipate, again I say you are an anarchist. Fine, but I believe your philosophy to be flawed. You offer up a criticism of our submission to man-made laws, how these laws are merely tools for control, and how there is no reason to obey to authority of another man. What you don't offer is an alternative. As humans we have to deal with one another, and naturally this results in conflicts. Conflicts result in consolidation of power. You want to criticize a system where this power is at least open to be manipulated by any member of a society, fine, but give me an alternative while you do it or I don't see the point to your words.

Conflict resolution is another small part of the economy. Most transactions and deals do not result in conflicts because people get information on the reputations of who they are dealing with. Only primitive societies are in constant conflict. And in those societies a state can't last for very long anyways. The very fact that the U.S. and other more civilized parts of the world have sustained a state this long is testament to their ability to resolve conflicts without the state. After all, in order for the state to resolve a conflict, the parties involved in the conflict, by and large, have to agree to the state's power long before the conflict has arisen.

The alternative is already here. Simply peel back the layers of bureaucracy that are causing us to head into economic oblivion, and allow alternative institutions to naturally fill in the space that those bureaucracies previously snatched away. After that, most everything will work out to everyone's advantage.

 

[Moonbeam]

".....................Simply peal back................."

Like opening a can of sardines?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Farang


I disagree. A system of checks and balances will not lead to 'clever men finding loopholes,' rather it will lead to those loopholes slowly being closed. Abused power is recognized, checked, and corrected. It is a never ending process, sure, and that is the reason for many people's negative view of the system. They see the current abuses and highlight them as the reason of its failure. But the beauty of this system is that it is constantly correcting itself.

The lobbyists in our countries. the special interests groups and the candidates willing to whore their souls to their contributers (on either side of the political spectrum) are indications of the flaws of the system of checks and balances. This system only works when there is intense scrutiny. But when the tools of observation (the media, thinktanks etc.) themselves become corrupt i.e have vested interests with those in power or partisan, the system is doomed to fail as it is happening today.

Survival of such a system will need a strict level of morality to be sustained by those in power. In your country and mine, we have the constitution to serve that purpose, a charter which imposes rights and duties on both the state as well as the citizen to aspire towards.

Originally posted by: Farang
Your last statement makes little sense to me. A system built to evade the worst qualities of the rulers is doomed? How do you suggest we proceed, then? We reward the worst qualities of the rulers? We ignore them?

Abuse of power can be construed as a negative quality of those in the administration. When a system is simply built on the concept of 'checks and balances' i.e preventing the abuse of power, obviously it is doomed to fail as forces trying to bring about the subversion of that intent will eventually arise during the course of time.

Checks and balances are a requisition of any organized system to survive. But it isn't the only one.

You bring up a good point about lobbyists. They entice politicians with money to manipulate their own values and the people they represent. This is a part of the "evil". Greed. For a truly successful government to be maintained, lobbyists should not be allowed access. No gift of any amount can compensate giving up liberty.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Farang


I disagree. A system of checks and balances will not lead to 'clever men finding loopholes,' rather it will lead to those loopholes slowly being closed. Abused power is recognized, checked, and corrected. It is a never ending process, sure, and that is the reason for many people's negative view of the system. They see the current abuses and highlight them as the reason of its failure. But the beauty of this system is that it is constantly correcting itself.

The lobbyists in our countries. the special interests groups and the candidates willing to whore their souls to their contributers (on either side of the political spectrum) are indications of the flaws of the system of checks and balances. This system only works when there is intense scrutiny. But when the tools of observation (the media, thinktanks etc.) themselves become corrupt i.e have vested interests with those in power or partisan, the system is doomed to fail as it is happening today.

Survival of such a system will need a strict level of morality to be sustained by those in power. In your country and mine, we have the constitution to serve that purpose, a charter which imposes rights and duties on both the state as well as the citizen to aspire towards.

Originally posted by: Farang
Your last statement makes little sense to me. A system built to evade the worst qualities of the rulers is doomed? How do you suggest we proceed, then? We reward the worst qualities of the rulers? We ignore them?

Abuse of power can be construed as a negative quality of those in the administration. When a system is simply built on the concept of 'checks and balances' i.e preventing the abuse of power, obviously it is doomed to fail as forces trying to bring about the subversion of that intent will eventually arise during the course of time.

Checks and balances are a requisition of any organized system to survive. But it isn't the only one.

You bring up a good point about lobbyists. They entice politicians with money to manipulate their own values and the people they represent. This is a part of the "evil". Greed. For a truly successful government to be maintained, lobbyists should not be allowed access. No gift of any amount can compensate giving up liberty.

Those aren't gifts. They're campaign contributions and fact-finding trips.