Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-01-2021, 1:20 PM
skilletboy's Avatar
skilletboy skilletboy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: GP, OR, State of Jefferson
Posts: 2,096
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Great video from Reason.com regarding gun sanctuary localities and states


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Osbwd6d66wA


Brings up the major point I have stressed is that one unwittingly positive effect of big federal gov, is they simply DO NOT have the manpower to enforce laws without the help of local and state police.

CA and OR have set the path for this with sanctuary immigration laws.
__________________
Quote:
"If the American people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the law then they will conclude that neither are they." - Michael Cannon, Cato Inst. 2014
_________________________________________

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-01-2021, 3:10 PM
ja308 ja308 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 11,282
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Very good concept !
thanx OP for the link.
Things might be looking up to slow the agenda of a man/dunce/fool who lost a landslide election against President Trump.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-01-2021, 3:40 PM
JohnnyMtn's Avatar
JohnnyMtn JohnnyMtn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 1,199
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Very good concept from a 2A perspective but this whole nullification of federal law by any state that disagrees is a dangerous concept. It started with immigration and marijuana and is now getting furthered with gun enforcement. Once that ball gets rolling there is no stopping it and pretty soon the federal government is moot. While I strongly believe the federal government is way too big I also don’t like the concept of states ignoring what they disagree with.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-01-2021, 4:48 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,002
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyMtn View Post
Very good concept from a 2A perspective but this whole nullification of federal law by any state that disagrees is a dangerous concept. It started with immigration and marijuana and is now getting furthered with gun enforcement. Once that ball gets rolling there is no stopping it and pretty soon the federal government is moot. While I strongly believe the federal government is way too big I also don’t like the concept of states ignoring what they disagree with.
Well it's already here, they've already nullified in favor of one side. The only way you get people to agree to not use a tactic is to use the tactic better, give them a bloody nose and then ask if they want to agree to unilateral disarmament.

This idea that taking up a tactic makes you impure is why the GOP as a whole sucks. They care more about being honorable to outdated stupid etiquette than actually preserving liberty or the actual fundamental values of their voters.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-01-2021, 5:38 PM
Gravelman Gravelman is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 3
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

While I completely agree with the concept of nullification, at the state level or at a local jury level, there’s a potential downside. If the feds can’t get local help for enforcement, their next step might be to boost the federal enforcement system and take care of fed issues with their own forces. I’m not saying that states shouldn’t go down this road at all, I’d love to see it play out, just be ready.

Don’t the states already collect federal tax money? Lot of possibilities there, if so..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-01-2021, 11:55 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,641
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

States' rights vs. perceived Federal overreach/unconstitutional actions has been a source of tension since before the Founding. As has been observed already, it's a two-edged sword, with pros/cons all the way 'round. Put another way, it's an imperfect system that has, mostly, worked fairly well.

The Civil War didn't change the debate, it simply changed the 'acceptable emphasis' in terms of which 'side' of the debate was adopted. Even at that, as the video mentions, the courts have attempted to maintain a 'balance' between States' rights and Federal authority, not just on a theoretical level, but a pragmatic one. Unfortunately, as often happens when 'balance' is the objective, accusations of 'chaos' inevitably emerge.

Such 'chaos' is usually representative of 'special/specific interests;' which, by definition, is what State/regional interests are all about. It's the very reason a 'weak' Federal Government was promoted by many of the Founders where a more 'local' Government better 'served' local interests than a Government 'removed' from and answerable to a variety of local interests which often differed. In fact, such has been argued as what started the Civil War, a Federal Government favoring the developing interests of one region of the country over the traditional interests of another.

The problem is that, as the saying goes, all politics are local and local is a perspective, not an absolute. Rural vs. urban. County vs. State. State vs. Federal. A "region" is an amorphously defined entity and is based on an almost infinite mix of variables and is very much dependent upon the perspective of the one creating the 'definition.' As such, and in many ways which count, it comes back to the old saying of: "Whose ox is being gored?"

From another perspective, it's about being able to "belly up to the trough," but also being desirous of not having to stand in the slop and "other things" around the trough while you are feeding from it. In some respects, it's similar to taking Federal funding, but not wanting to adhere to the Federal guidelines associated with that funding. If you wanna eat, you accept and act according to those guidelines. If you don't want to adhere to such, then you find your 'food' someplace else. At one time, it may have been possible to act, virtually independent of 'higher government authority.' Today, not so much.

Rights protected by the Constitution are not just those which were specifically enumerated. Likewise, the powers of the Federal Government are not at the level of omnipotence, despite what many actors on that level believe. As the 9th and 10th Amendments state...

Quote:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If you want to champion nullification regarding "gun rights," then be prepared that nullification can then be sought regarding abortion, immigration, drugs, criminal sentencing, and numerous other things many here have strong feelings over regarding what "should be" enforced. It's not just about...

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Well it's already here, they've already nullified in favor of one side. The only way you get people to agree to not use a tactic is to use the tactic better, give them a bloody nose and then ask if they want to agree to unilateral disarmament.

This idea that taking up a tactic makes you impure is why the GOP as a whole sucks. They care more about being honorable to outdated stupid etiquette than actually preserving liberty or the actual fundamental values of their voters.
It's about being willing to end up with a bloody nose as well... or a broken jaw or a concussion or feeling as though you have one. THAT is why many in the GOP seek to 'uphold tradition' (an intrinsic part of the definition for 'conservative') regarding how things function. This society has always been about a 'balance,' not anarchy and not authoritarianism. Unfortunately, what you are witnessing is the inherent risk involved; i.e., when a System is used against itself, it becomes exponentially more difficult to be seen as using the System in defense of itself rather than opting for a more 'radical' solution to the perceived immediacy of the problem.

The "actual fundamental values of their voters" is dependent upon the regions they represent. Such can be problematic on a national level. As I repeatedly note (and lament), even on this board, we can't come to a definitive consensus on what the 2nd Amendment protects or what it should protect. We can agree on an overarching principle, but when it comes to specifics, we flare off at almost every conceivable angle. It's a prime example of both why a "national law/standard" cannot work when it comes to specific "gun laws" and why national level politicians have difficulty coming to an agreement on what it means to "preserve liberty." Remember, 'freedom' is a theoretical abstract and 'liberty' is the pragmatic ability to act on that 'freedom.'

Somewhere "in the middle" is where we aim to be as a country; but, there will always be "pull" toward one side or another related to specific aspects of society. In theory, that's what the Federal Government was put in place to do... "maintain an overall balance" while giving individual regions the ability to "maintain their own balance" as they deem 'necessary.' Put another way, the Federal Government is there to reduce the 'conflicts' when it comes to the perceived needs of the various 'regions.'

This is what you're seeing... the conflict which results from 'radical' agendas (from both ends of the spectrum) confronting a desire to maintain 'traditional' customs/practices. At the moment, the Federal Government is no longer "in balance" and, therefore, is incapable of maintaining an overall balance. Thus, the regions are attempting to 'push back' in the interest of maintaining their own balance. But, such will, inevitably, create and heighten the 'conflicts' among the various regions and, if those conflicts become too intense and/or too encompassing, it will 'threaten' the stability intrinsic to the term "United" States.

So... Where does the line need to be drawn and where can it be drawn without threatening that stability?

Let's hope we don't have to find out 'the hard way,' again.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-03-2021, 11:40 AM
skilletboy's Avatar
skilletboy skilletboy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: GP, OR, State of Jefferson
Posts: 2,096
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyMtn View Post
Very good concept from a 2A perspective but this whole nullification of federal law by any state that disagrees is a dangerous concept. It started with immigration and marijuana and is now getting furthered with gun enforcement. Once that ball gets rolling there is no stopping it and pretty soon the federal government is moot. While I strongly believe the federal government is way too big I also don’t like the concept of states ignoring what they disagree with.
You're not wrong in what you say. However the obvious difference between the two is one is an example of states legally protecting lawlessness and the other protecting the rights of the people under the constitution. Something I would say those elected officials have a legal obligation to do. From you local sheriff, to the state governor, I think refusing to participate with federal LE bc of the unconstitutional nature of the law in question is much different that immigration of drugs. But that is just my 2 cents.
__________________
Quote:
"If the American people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the law then they will conclude that neither are they." - Michael Cannon, Cato Inst. 2014
_________________________________________

Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-03-2021, 11:19 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,646
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyMtn View Post
Very good concept from a 2A perspective but this whole nullification of federal law by any state that disagrees is a dangerous concept. It started with immigration and marijuana and is now getting furthered with gun enforcement. Once that ball gets rolling there is no stopping it and pretty soon the federal government is moot. While I strongly believe the federal government is way too big I also don’t like the concept of states ignoring what they disagree with.
I agree with you that states being able to nullify federal laws is a dangerous concept and I do understand why states are taking steps to nullify unconstitutional gun laws. That being said we can blame SCOTUS for allowing things to become so out of control at both the federal and state level. All governments need to follow the law be they federal or local and all administrators need to held accountable when they go rogue at all levels of government. IMO SCOTUS needs to take a lot more 2A cases and make some consistent rulings one way or the other in other words either we have a second amendment that the country should follow or we don't.

Last edited by R Dale; 06-03-2021 at 11:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-04-2021, 4:21 AM
Gravelman Gravelman is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 3
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Assuming the feds don’t go down the path of federal stormtroopers showing up and (over) enforcing federal laws that suit their political whims, I’m good with states ignoring the huge federal overreaching web of laws/regulations we live with today. Let the states run the states and the people will choose the “best” states by moving to, or away from, the ones they think are best. Kinda like a free market..

The fact that I can be fined or jailed for violating a regulation imposed by an unelected bureaucracy is simply wrong. Punishment that results in jail time should only possible when violating a law, passed by elected representatives. There was a founding principle, taxation without representation, that I think applies here, but it’s gone far beyond simple taxation.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-04-2021, 6:27 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,002
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
If you want to champion nullification regarding "gun rights," then be prepared that nullification can then be sought regarding abortion, immigration, drugs, criminal sentencing, and numerous other things many here have strong feelings over regarding what "should be" enforced.
They've already effectively nullified immigration, drugs, criminal sentencing, and other things. Oh, not criminal sentencing. That's right, it's all about politics and the federal charges come out to play a 2 step game around double jeopardy while allowing virtually the same outcome, it's just "legally" different.

We're ALREADY dealing with the bad parts of that, so f- it, go whole hog and play the game the way they are. This conservative handwringing is such BS because the parade of horribles is already here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
It's about being willing to end up with a bloody nose as well... or a broken jaw or a concussion or feeling as though you have one. THAT is why many in the GOP seek to 'uphold tradition' (an intrinsic part of the definition for 'conservative') regarding how things function. This society has always been about a 'balance,' not anarchy and not authoritarianism. Unfortunately, what you are witnessing is the inherent risk involved; i.e., when a System is used against itself, it becomes exponentially more difficult to be seen as using the System in defense of itself rather than opting for a more 'radical' solution to the perceived immediacy of the problem.
Which is why i have contempt for conservatives. Contempt. I care about justice. I care about freedom. Not stability uber alles. Frankly I'd laugh at conservatives being bankrupted while braying about the constitution because they prize their own fortunes and comfort over the constitution repeatedly. They refuse to engage in local politics. They speak of a republic but their revealed preferences say they'd be far happier with a strongman autocrat in charge as they do none of the things that would be necessary for a republic to actually represent their interests. So... I don't believe they love the constitution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
The "actual fundamental values of their voters" is dependent upon the regions they represent. Such can be problematic on a national level. As I repeatedly note (and lament), even on this board, we can't come to a definitive consensus on what the 2nd Amendment protects or what it should protect. We can agree on an overarching principle, but when it comes to specifics, we flare off at almost every conceivable angle. It's a prime example of both why a "national law/standard" cannot work when it comes to specific "gun laws" and why national level politicians have difficulty coming to an agreement on what it means to "preserve liberty." Remember, 'freedom' is a theoretical abstract and 'liberty' is the pragmatic ability to act on that 'freedom.'

Somewhere "in the middle" is where we aim to be as a country; but, there will always be "pull" toward one side or another related to specific aspects of society. In theory, that's what the Federal Government was put in place to do... "maintain an overall balance" while giving individual regions the ability to "maintain their own balance" as they deem 'necessary.' Put another way, the Federal Government is there to reduce the 'conflicts' when it comes to the perceived needs of the various 'regions.'
This is ignorant elementary school stuff. That's the propaganda you're taught at school not actually representative of how things work. We live in a totalizing ideological war since the Civil War. Confederacy couldn't be allowed. Nor could Nazism. Nor could Communism. Nor can "unfree democracies". The world economy is based on a totalizing principle, and same with national debates. Notice how abortion went national, not regional or state based. Notice how the commerce clause ate everything. The regulation of waterways.

We don't go towards a "balance". That's simply inaccurate as evidenced by any real world evidence. Notice how the rust belt died while coastal states grew fat off financialization and these states were powerless to stop it. This is because states don't have the ability to substantially affect the way capital flows so they can be drained of productivity or industries. A microcosm is the destruction of "state of Jefferson" areas in California. The idea of "balance" is propaganda that is inaccurate and meant to keep the victims from realizing just how screwed they are... and getting angry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
This is what you're seeing... the conflict which results from 'radical' agendas (from both ends of the spectrum)
Nope, I fundamentally challenge your "both sides" rhetoric. Show me how the Republican side is extremist. They're just a slower version of the neoliberal, finance capital championing that the Democrats are. I welcome you to prove me wrong. Trump isn't even close to historical labor or Smoot-Hawley tariffs protectionism or Huey Long in practice. The "both sides" is again meant to anathematize normal, sane, workable policies on the other side so all that's left is the powerful effective version and the slower, dumber, but still same destination solution. Mike Lee of Utah and his looooove of H1bs is this false dichotomy. They're fundamentally all on the same side and there's no radicalism on the right that has any representation whatever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
confronting a desire to maintain 'traditional' customs/practices. At the moment, the Federal Government is no longer "in balance" and, therefore, is incapable of maintaining an overall balance. Thus, the regions are attempting to 'push back' in the interest of maintaining their own balance. But, such will, inevitably, create and heighten the 'conflicts' among the various regions and, if those conflicts become too intense and/or too encompassing, it will 'threaten' the stability intrinsic to the term "United" States.

So... Where does the line need to be drawn and where can it be drawn without threatening that stability?

Let's hope we don't have to find out 'the hard way,' again.
Good. F*ck stability as the only metric. The job of a people is not to give their lives and productivity to vampiric coastal parasites that scream any attempt to break the power of big business and finance is radicalism. The job of people is to pursue their best interests for their people and nation as the see it. The rust belt and other forgotten areas simply aren't going to thrive in the "winner-take-all" system finance capitalism has said is the only correct market position, so they naturally are starting to refuse to play the game. Stability for stability's sake is the idea of Emperor Palpatine or the Machines in the Matrix. Or the feedlots with animals raised to slaughter.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 06-04-2021 at 6:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-05-2021, 6:00 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,641
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It's no challenge at all given that you've done most of the work for me. A few observations...

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
They've already effectively nullified immigration, drugs, criminal sentencing, and other things...
Have they 'nullified' them or can the Feds decide to actually enforce them? Put another way, did the Liberal States 'nullify' the laws or is it more representative of a lack of Federal willpower to enforce Federal laws?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
We're ALREADY dealing with the bad parts of that, so f- it, go whole hog and play the game the way they are. This conservative handwringing is such BS because the parade of horribles is already here.
Since condemning their 'side' for doing things wrong didn't work, might as well play it the way we condemn(ed) it for being played? Uh...???

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
Which is why i have contempt for conservatives...
Do not confuse 'stability' with a 'lack of justice/freedom.' The fact is that the Constitution itself was and is an instrument of 'stability.' The idea that Trump was a "strongman autocrat" was a narrative pushed by the Left and not necessarily wholly true or accurate. For one thing, Trump was no more an 'autocrat' than the majority of Presidents. However, don't we, on this board, typically lament the lack of a 'strong' leader who will protect the Constitution and the way of life it was intended to preserve?

I could name a number of 'conservatives' involved in local politics. Part of the problem, though, is that they are outnumbered; particularly so in California. There's also the fact that 'conservative' is not a single, definitive point on the political spectrum; thus, one need be cautious in terms of who they feel deserving of their contempt. Is it "all conservatives" as you seem to be alluding to or are there specific individuals who claim the mantle, but don't necessarily represent "conservative values" consistently or at all?

As was discussed in another thread, take the "conservatives" on the Supreme Court as a sample group. Are they "all" deserving of contempt or is there room for a bit more nuanced critique? Are they "all" deserving of the label "conservative" or is that label too (no pun intended) liberally applied?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
...The idea of "balance" is propaganda that is inaccurate and meant to keep the victims from realizing just how screwed they are... and getting angry.
Do not confuse/conflate 'bad outcomes' (or outcomes personally disagreed with) in specific instances with 'original intent' being responsible for those outcomes. As I said, when the System is used against itself, that doesn't mean the System is 'bad' or intrinsically 'evil.' It means that the System is not also being utilized effectively to protect itself. Such is summed up in the expression: "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
Nope, I fundamentally challenge your "both sides" rhetoric. Show me how the Republican side is extremist...
Didn't you just suggest that Republicans prefer a "strongman autocrat?" Isn't that 'extremist' by definition? So... You declare them to be 'extremists' than claim it is 'rhetoric' to declare them 'extremist' or 'radical.' Ummm...

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
They're just a slower version of the neoliberal, finance capital championing that the Democrats are.
As I have said, many times, Democrats and Republicans are on a journey to the same, relative destination. The difference is in their respective paths and, therefore, the speed at which they will arrive. But, historically, such can be argued as an almost inevitable outcome of 'government' and part of why some of the Founders 'resisted' political parties of any stripe. The concern being that such parties represented 'factionalization' or 'division;' something anathema to what they were attempting to forge vis a vis an "United" States.

Such division is usually exemplified by a push for 'control.' The desire for control is a 'necessary evil' if one wishes to ensconce their perspective/agenda as public policy. Inevitably, such control breeds conflict related to competing perspectives/agenda. Just like your contempt for 'conservatives' and your attitude that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
Good. F*ck stability as the only metric...
A country cannot exist, thrive, and survive without some form of stability. It may not be the "only metric," but it is a critical one. Once again, you are conflating the 'right idea' with 'bad actors' and 'bad outcomes.' It's not about stability for the sake of stability. It's about stability so that people can pursue the best interests of the People and the Nation they inhabit. Without that stability, their focus would be more on the necessities of survival than on the niceties of 'best interests.' Or, as it was phrased just about 245 years ago...

Quote:
...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...
That whole section seems to speak directly to 'stability' being a crucial factor in securing unalienable rights and such stability should not be upset for "light and transient" causes. If the status quo (which is not necessarily synonymous with 'stability') threatens those unalienable rights or threatens the 'stability' itself, then a new 'stability' is rightfully sought/created. But, stability, either 'new' or 'old,' is not created via 'extremism,' whether from the Left or the Right, even if 'radical actions' are necessitated to 'stabilize' things.

That is precisely what we have now, 'radicalism' from both the Left and the Right pulling on the 'balance' which is the lynch pin for that 'stability.' Stability is not, be default, synonymous with an 'imbalance' in one ideological direction or another. It's the difference between what Obama was referring to in relation to creating a "fundamental change" to this country and what McConnell was practicing, in league with Trump, in terms of judicial appointments. Both represent forms of 'radicalism.'

In Obama's case, the intent was to destabilize and reconstruct in a form weighted in an ideological direction distinctly different than the one which had 'traditionally' provided a sense of stability for the People and the Nation. In the case of McConnell/Trump, the intent wasn't to create a new 'balance,' but a restoration of the previously 'lost' balance or 'stability' in the Court System. Such was the very reason MANY individuals, including many members here, voted for Trump; not as a "strongman autocrat," but as a leader, it was hoped, with the strength to restore the desired balance.

As I asked previously... Where does the line need to be drawn vis a vis that 'balance point' which is, as I described it, the 'lynch pin of stability' and where can it be drawn without threatening that stability?

Let's hope we don't have to find out 'the hard way,' again.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-05-2021, 9:50 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,002
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Have they 'nullified' them or can the Feds decide to actually enforce them? Put another way, did the Liberal States 'nullify' the laws or is it more representative of a lack of Federal willpower to enforce Federal laws?
6 of one, half a dozen of another. The fact that the feds COULD choose to enforce but don't is exactly the same position of the Privileges and Immunities clause they COULD choose to enforce but don't. All that matters in governance is what is, not what could be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Since condemning their 'side' for doing things wrong didn't work, might as well play it the way we condemn(ed) it for being played? Uh...???
Yes, exactly. Don't hate the player, hate the game, play the game better, win, and then you have a chance of changing the game. Whining about the game when it doesn't change anything is stupid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Do not confuse 'stability' with a 'lack of justice/freedom.' The fact is that the Constitution itself was and is an instrument of 'stability.' The idea that Trump was a "strongman autocrat" was a narrative pushed by the Left and not necessarily wholly true or accurate. For one thing, Trump was no more an 'autocrat' than the majority of Presidents. However, don't we, on this board, typically lament the lack of a 'strong' leader who will protect the Constitution and the way of life it was intended to preserve?
Democrats were scared trump was a strongman autocrat because that was the only realistic hope of actually fundamentally changing the system. The elite is wholly in the bag for democrats from permanent government bureaucrats to business to transnational capitalists so the only way things were going to change was for an autocrat to literally or metaphorically decapitate a bunch and install a new power center that could combat that apparatus. Failing that, you get what we got with Trump. I'm not fundamentally against an autocratic strongman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
I could name a number of 'conservatives' involved in local politics. Part of the problem, though, is that they are outnumbered; particularly so in California. There's also the fact that 'conservative' is not a single, definitive point on the political spectrum; thus, one need be cautious in terms of who they feel deserving of their contempt. Is it "all conservatives" as you seem to be alluding to or are there specific individuals who claim the mantle, but don't necessarily represent "conservative values" consistently or at all?
Conservative itself is the dumbest label you could ever come up with. It means nothing in particular, and sets up questions of identity if anything changes. There are people who call themselves conservative I consider friends, look up to, would vote for, and would love to be in charge. That doesn't change the fact that the category name itself is stupid, leads to the mealy-mouthed hard to define quality you list above, and allows genuine enemies to hide in the ranks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
As was discussed in another thread, take the "conservatives" on the Supreme Court as a sample group. Are they "all" deserving of contempt or is there room for a bit more nuanced critique? Are they "all" deserving of the label "conservative" or is that label too (no pun intended) liberally applied?
"Conservative" supreme court? yes. Contempt, disgust, and impeachment. They need to not "conserve", they need to LEAD. Which is not about "conserving" but looking to the future. Conservative is fundamentally a backward-looking ideology. Looking to history is wonderful and to be expected- look at how often I cite things- but it should not be the fundamental component you define yourself off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Didn't you just suggest that Republicans prefer a "strongman autocrat?" Isn't that 'extremist' by definition? So... You declare them to be 'extremists' than claim it is 'rhetoric' to declare them 'extremist' or 'radical.' Ummm...
No, strongman autocrats are a world norm that don't usually lead to generalized violence. Pinochet over his regime of "terror" is estimated to have assassinated approximately 3,000 people, which is a far cry from the Millions Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, and other leaders who were only "secretaries" rather than centralized authorities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
As I have said, many times, Democrats and Republicans are on a journey to the same, relative destination. The difference is in their respective paths and, therefore, the speed at which they will arrive. But, historically, such can be argued as an almost inevitable outcome of 'government' and part of why some of the Founders 'resisted' political parties of any stripe. The concern being that such parties represented 'factionalization' or 'division;' something anathema to what they were attempting to forge vis a vis an "United" States.
This is why I fundamentally disagree with you and find such thoughts contemptible. I definitely don't have the same relative destination Democrats do, and anyone going there has signed onto the suicide pact that the Democrats are as evidenced by the doom and gloom their electorate feels- the birthrate is one of the strongest and unfakeable statistics on people's hopes for the future. As for the factionalization and division: the founding fathers were brilliant men but we whitewash them a lot to make them coherent. Alexander Hamilton was such an a$shole he repeatedly got involved in duals and is eventually killed in one. Jefferson was a thoroughly political beast who fought bitterly with Addams and vicious slanderous propaganda wars.

They didn't WANT parties but it was inevitable; they were incredibly intelligent incredibly partisan people and Jefferson even notes basically the only way for the system to keep liberty and not be party oriented is for there to be a revolution every 20 years. Parties are the only way that we don't have bloody murder every 20 years and they probably knew that but denied it consciously because they'd have to admit their project was a utopian one doomed to failure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
As I asked previously... Where does the line need to be drawn vis a vis that 'balance point' which is, as I described it, the 'lynch pin of stability' and where can it be drawn without threatening that stability?

Let's hope we don't have to find out 'the hard way,' again.
Meh. The questions about stability at this point are inevitably poisoned by the questions of stability of the US as hegemon for the world, the dollar as reserve currency, the dollar-oil peg, the post-WWII international process, etc. This is naturally failing on its own and doomed for collapse regardless of what I want or feel. I merely notice it will fall under its own weight and hypocrisy and argue we need to actually argue for our interests instead of propping up a rotting corpse that, when it falls, you're caught flat footed, covered in rotting flesh and there is no chair left for you in the musical chairs race you lost because you were holding a rotting icon instead of pursuing your selfish rational interest.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-05-2021, 7:26 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,873
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
As I have said, many times, Democrats and Republicans are on a journey to the same, relative destination. The difference is in their respective paths and, therefore, the speed at which they will arrive.
Sorry, Trapped, but you just lost the argument right here. The place the Democrats are going is the ruin of the country, the destruction of the foundation that makes this place fundamentally different from and better than other places, and the imposition of tyranny upon all but those who rule. You've just declared that the Republicans' path gets us to the same evil place.

But if that's so, then it logically follows that neither path is the path to take, that a break from both groups is mandatory to preserve and bolster (and, to whatever degree it has already been lost, restore) liberty, justice, rule of proper law, self-responsibility, meritocratic principles, and all the other things that made this place good.

If your choice is between adopting the tactics of the enemy (or, at least, adopting tactics that are otherwise repugnant), if only to the degree necessary, and outright failure, which is it going to be? Because it is becoming apparent that such a choice is, if not already upon us, fast approaching.

Outright failure is not an option. Not if you value the foundational principles of the country. And while the founders obviously got some things wrong (sometimes badly wrong), the basic principles in question are not among them.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-05-2021, 9:31 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,641
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Sorry, Trapped, but you just lost the argument right here. The place the Democrats are going is the ruin of the country, the destruction of the foundation that makes this place fundamentally different from and better than other places, and the imposition of tyranny upon all but those who rule. You've just declared that the Republicans' path gets us to the same evil place.
Sorry KC, but in many similar respects, Republicans are headed for the same place. Remember the Patriot Act, the lack of action related to Big Tech, Dick Cheney looking for access to search engine algorithms, et al. It's not about Democrats are after guns and freedom of speech, so they are evil and Republicans are after... well, we agree with that so they aren't evil. The paths are very much dependent upon whose ox is getting gored at a given moment, not about a difference in ultimate destination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
But if that's so, then it logically follows that neither path is the path to take, that a break from both groups is mandatory to preserve and bolster (and, to whatever degree it has already been lost, restore) liberty, justice, rule of proper law, self-responsibility, meritocratic principles, and all the other things that made this place good.
What you conflate and confuse is the "path" taken by the factions and the path laid out as intended by the System. Again, it's the very reason the Founders resisted political parties; accepting them, at a limited level, as a 'necessary evil' rather than a panacea of insurance in protecting not only the nation, but the rights of individuals. Put another way, they recognized the lack of hegemony and were, ultimately, forced to accept a certain amount of division as inevitable. The intent became an overall pursuit rather than an inviolable absolute; which is precisely why the Bill of Rights was added as a restraint on Government when it came to individual liberties/freedoms.

Thus, the choice is the same as faced by the Founders and one they, ultimately, alluded to. No government, no matter how well intended, will remain unchanged forever. The crux, however, is the direction of the change in the context of its impact on the People and how long the People were willing to withstand the 'negative' vs. their perception of the 'positive' drawn from the existing system.

Many here, including you, advocate for a change to a 'new' form of Government. My argument is that there is nothing wrong with the one we were given. New or old, each form of government is vulnerable to the same foibles, machinations, manipulations, et al. that we've seen over 245 years. While you and those proponents of the 'new' declare otherwise, there is simply no way for imperfect humans to devise a perfect, invulnerable system. No matter how cautiously and definitively "the Rules" are crafted, there will ALWAYS remain avenues by which they can be manipulated to 'favor' an agenda and no codified 'remedy' for that will be any more effective (or superior) to what we now have in that it would still REQUIRE a 'will of the People' to enforce. (If it doesn't, instead relying on 'automatic systemic checks,' you will be venturing into a pseudo-totalitarian system divorced from rather than representative of the People.)

As I said in the earlier post, one has to be cautious in confusing (or blaming) original intent with 'bad outcomes' (or outcomes personally disagreed with). In doing so, you condemn virtually any system of government, including the alternative you and others posit. The original intent of the current system was to allow a certain 'flexibility' and 'adaptability' with the idea of retaining 'maximum' individual freedom/liberty within the context of a 'necessary' Government at varying levels. The crucial aspect of that was found in a reliance on We the People to actively maintain and protect our own liberties/freedoms, including from Government. It has been, simultaneously, our greatest strength and our greatest vulnerability.

What you and others declare is a 'need' for a more 'rigid' (clearly defined) system that will 'insure/ensure' invulnerability to the types of manipulations which have occurred. Put another way, less of a reliance on We the People and more dependence on a system which exerts a psuedo-tyrannical 'rule' (less flexibility/adaptability inherent to the system). With restraint comes constraint and there is no grammatical, philosophical, ideological, or pragmatic argument which obviates such. Worse. It does not allow for the inherent diversity (including of thought) which comes with the flexibility/adaptability of our current system. In point of fact, in many respects, it replicates the very 'attack' the current system has suffered from, with the difference being, not in the 'official documents,' but in ideological direction.

Think in terms of the old expression: "Being hoisted by your own petard." Everything (or enough) is 'great' until you find yourself on 'the wrong side' of the system and then everything (or enough) is 'wrong.' Doesn't that pretty much sum up where many feel we currently are?

From the beginning, Mankind has been attempting to find the former and avoid the latter. We haven't figured it out yet. What makes you think a more 'rigid' system is "the Path" to follow vs. the inherently "flexible" System we were bestowed by the Founders... beyond... "I think we need change?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
If your choice is between adopting the tactics of the enemy (or, at least, adopting tactics that are otherwise repugnant), if only to the degree necessary, and outright failure, which is it going to be? Because it is becoming apparent that such a choice is, if not already upon us, fast approaching.
That's a question of perception, not necessarily fact. First, it presumes we are about to 'fail' in the main. As I have repeatedly warned, don't confuse "I disagree" with systemic failure. Second, it is an abandonment of the Founders as "flawed" in their intent, something which is an intrinsic adoption of the "other side's" narrative.

As an example of such a narrative and only because it starkly illustrates the point, you might review several of the "45 Communist Goals" entered into the Congressional Record in 1963. It's not about it being a "communist plot." It's about the 'blueprint' laid out for undermining the country and the culture it is based upon. Among those goals...

Quote:
...15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks...

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."...
There's more, but aren't those what we're specifically talking about in this thread?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
Outright failure is not an option. Not if you value the foundational principles of the country. And while the founders obviously got some things wrong (sometimes badly wrong), the basic principles in question are not among them.
Again, that is a perception and a presumption; i.e., that we are verging on "outright failure." Neither the perception nor the presumption is, necessarily, true or accurate. While you and I may agree that we are 'unhappy' with the direction things are going, such does not represent a failure of the System so much as a failure for those on our side to adequately defend the System. In many respects, it is inarguable that what has been "allowed" is for the System to be used "against itself." Yet, the System is intrinsically designed in a way that such was not, of necessity, demanded to be "allowed" or, even if successful, "allowed to stand" without resort to abandonment of the System itself.

It is, however, representative of a disagreement you and others have related to the direction we've been headed. To that degree, I agree. Where we disagree is in the remedy we seek. I still believe the System, as designed and intended, can be used to defend itself. What it will require, however, is a renewed desire on the part of We the People to defend what we have. Of course, if that desire cannot be generated, the next, logical and reasonable question would be: "What's the point?"

You believe an 'entirely new' system is required; one constructed in 'your image' as you feel it needs to be 'created' or 'refined' based on your perceptions, experiences, and what you construe as 'lessons from history.' In that vein, you have openly acknowledged that you have 'come around' to a philosophy of 'whatever it takes' to invoke that new system. With that choice of philosophy, you prejudice your premise; i.e., logically, you must adopt the thought that the system, as it exists, is failing and that the current generation is 'smarter' than (or at least as wise as) the Founders vis a vis not only their intent, but their ability to create something 'better,' beginning with what we have now.

As I said, I'm not convinced either is the case.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 06-05-2021 at 9:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-06-2021, 11:09 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,873
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Many here, including you, advocate for a change to a 'new' form of Government.
I do not believe the current structure needs to be replaced. However, it's missing something crucial: liberty is not treated as a first class entity by it, and as a result, normal operation of the system automatically results in the minimization of liberty. This needs correction, which can only be achieved through careful alteration of the system.

There are consequences to the claim that the Republicans are headed towards the same path as the Democrats. Where the Democrats are headed is the destruction of the country and the principles upon which it was founded. That has major consequences. To wit: because the Democrats and Republicans, when combined, completely control the system in both space and time, it logically follows that it is not possible to change the destination by way of working within the system. This is a situation that the founders of the country did not anticipate (at least, not in anything I've seen), save perhaps for the 2nd Amendment.

The situation as it is today is one where we have two groups of people with positions that are much more diametrically opposed than even the groups that fought the Civil War. While the groups that fought the Civil War were staunchly opposed to each other with respect to some specific things (slavery being one of them), both at least agreed with respect to most of the fundamental principles behind the country. But today, the two groups are in fundamental disagreement on even that, with one group believing the fundamental principles behind the country to be the evil offspring of the white patriarchy.

Groups which cannot even agree on fundamental principles of governance and societal structure are groups that cannot coexist. They must either separate or fight until one group is destroyed. There is no other option on the table. The system has no provisions for this, and so there is no way to use the system to resolve it.


Seeing how (as you clearly imply) both Democrats and Republicans are headed towards the same tyrannical endpoint, how exactly do you propose to work within the system they fully control to achieve an end that they do not want, most especially given that the real dispute is over the fundamental principles of the country that they both disagree with?
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-07-2021, 1:12 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,641
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I do not believe the current structure needs to be replaced. However, it's missing something crucial: liberty is not treated as a first class entity by it, and as a result, normal operation of the system automatically results in the minimization of liberty. This needs correction, which can only be achieved through careful alteration of the system.
As I've said, it's not "the System" which minimizes it, it's We the People and our representatives (politicians, judges, etc.) which have allowed for such 'minimization.' Just take a look at this Board. There's a whole lot of disagreement on a whole lot of topics. Yet, somehow, the site manages to survive. Why?

Because TPTB use the rules to 'knock heads' occasionally and bring things back into line or keep things in line. The same could be done with the political parties and the System itself - IF - as we talk about, the People were to get behind it. Of course, if the People can't, as I asked before: "What's the point?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
There are consequences to the claim that the Republicans are headed towards the same path as the Democrats. Where the Democrats are headed is the destruction of the country and the principles upon which it was founded. That has major consequences.
Not the same 'path.' The same 'destination.' Such is the inevitable outcome of all forms of Government throughout human history. The Founders specifically spoke to it, gave us mechanisms to ward off the inevitable, and bade us "Good Luck." That's the nature of the Great Experiment; i.e., an exercise in self-governance.

The goal? "A more perfect union." Not a 'perfect' one. A more 'perfect' one. By definition and default, that means there will be stumbles and hiccups and disagreements along the way. There will be alterations of course; e.g., "the path" a given political party takes may seemingly change. (Just look at how the current parties have flipped just during the Trump-era in terms of who 'supports' which.)

That also speaks to your premise; i.e., that Democrats are 'destroying' the principles of the nation and, thus, the nation itself. Once again, that's a matter of perception, not fact. The truth is that they argue Republicans are doing exactly the same thing. Can both be true? Absolutely.

That is the 'imbalance' I keep referring to and why I said there is a 'pull' from both ends of the political spectrum. Rather than seeking balance, the political parties are seeking dominance, precisely the thing which concerned the Founders. Put another way, rather than a 'bell shaped curve' where the 'average' citizens finds their rights 'maximized' within the context of society, they, instead, find both sides looking to minimize the rights of the other.

Such isn't going to change because you "carefully tweak" the Constitution by building in what you consider 'absolutes.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
To wit: because the Democrats and Republicans, when combined, completely control the system in both space and time, it logically follows that it is not possible to change the destination by way of working within the system. This is a situation that the founders of the country did not anticipate (at least, not in anything I've seen), save perhaps for the 2nd Amendment.
Actually, they anticipated precisely that, which is why they gave us the soap box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box. Simply because each box has not been effectively used does not mean those boxes are useless or ineffective. But, as has been discussed, all politics are local and local is a perception rather than an empirical standard. I could point you to a number of efforts, right here in California, where change is being sought by members of their respective parties.

You see, that's another 'flaw' or 'bias' with your premise. You keep referring to Democrats and Republicans as if each is an hegemonic group philosophically/ideologically. As is well established, they are far from it. Unfortunately, as of the moment, the 'moderates leaders,' in both parties, are far outnumbered (in many instances, due to a lack of perceived choice) and many who are attempting to claim that title are... well... wolves in sheep's clothing. (Much like Biden campaigning as a 'moderate' and, once attaining office, bending over backward to appease the Far Left.)

Which brings us back to the People; i.e., those who voted for them. Some of it is ignorance. Some of it is agenda. Some of it is cutting off one's nose to spite their face. Some of it is... A whole lot of things. (Just like the threads on this board pushing people to vote for Kamala Harris as a "junior Senator" so that she was out-of-the-state and 'minimized' in terms of power.) In many ways, it is similar to...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
...the groups that fought the Civil War were staunchly opposed to each other with respect to some specific things (slavery being one of them), both at least agreed with respect to most of the fundamental principles behind the country. But today, the two groups are in fundamental disagreement on even that, with one group believing the fundamental principles behind the country to be the evil offspring of the white patriarchy.
Actually, the noisiest are diametrically opposed. I still hold to the idea that the majority are not as divided as the media, the fringes, and those with agendas portray them as being. If we were THAT broken, on the whole, as a People... Let's just say that the System would have already collapsed, turned to dust, and we'd be exercising a form of authoritarianism or severe tribalism that would make works such as The Book of Eli or The Postman or 1984 or Minority Report seem like childrens' fairy tales.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
Groups which cannot even agree on fundamental principles of governance and societal structure are groups that cannot coexist. They must either separate or fight until one group is destroyed. There is no other option on the table. The system has no provisions for this, and so there is no way to use the system to resolve it.
That's the fundamental basis of the Great Experiment. It's why the Founders provided 'safety valves' and why they also provided the means for change. While you and I may not agree with or like the change, again, that does not, by definition, represent a "failure" of the System. Such a failure would be alteration in the manner you posit... "This needs correction, which can only be achieved through careful alteration of the system."

As I observed, you wish to create a System which functions separate from the People. You may object, but that's actually what you have proposed in terms of the types of 'checks and balances' you have alluded to before; i.e., a system which precludes input from the People and, instead, operates as an absolute, inviolable standard to which all must adhere. The problem? Who creates the standard?

Isn't that exactly what it is we are 'rebelling' against? The Left wants to change the standard to something we don't like, so you want to change the standard to something we like, but they don't? What happened to changing the 'standard' back to the 'traditional' one which has worked, for the most part, for 2 1/2 centuries? But, that brings us to...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
Seeing how (as you clearly imply) both Democrats and Republicans are headed towards the same tyrannical endpoint, how exactly do you propose to work within the system they fully control to achieve an end that they do not want, most especially given that the real dispute is over the fundamental principles of the country that they both disagree with?
Here we go again. They DO NOT "fully control" the System. Evidence for that can be found in Trump's election. However, as of the moment, given the... for lack of a better term... 'cabal' of the media, the politicians, special interests, et al., I will grant that it can be difficult to see that. Just like "they disagree with the fundamental principles of the country" because they don't agree with or see things as "I" do? Yes. The Left does live in an 'alternate reality;' but, that is marked by interpretation more than disagreement related to the principles.

As I've said before, Heller is good example of exactly that. You have a majority and a dissent. Neither outright rejects the 2nd Amendment or even the reasons why it is there. Where the disagreement is located is in the emphasis placed upon the liberties to act upon the freedoms it recognizes. It's why Hillary and Obama can declare they 'support' the 2nd Amendment. What they don't tell you is that they support a different understanding of it than has been traditionally observed; the latter being the one we happen to agree with and is the one presented, as best he could with the hindrance of 'compromise,' in the majority.

Is Heller flawed? Sure. Actually, it might be more accurate to state that it was not definitive enough with regard to specifics. But, again, that too was deliberate. Heller wasn't about a 'winner-takes-it-all' attempt to settle things. It was the first in an envisioned series of steps toward restoration of some form of the 'traditional' understanding of the 2nd Amendment. Scalia's death and an unwillingness to 'risk' a bad outcome have impinged upon the ability to pursue more steps; something many are hoping is now less of an impingement with Trump's appointments.

It's going to be similar insofar as the People at large. There is no, one-size-fits-all, so long as it fits "me" solution. If you have a problem with "consent of the governed" (which, in many ways, is synonymous with "consensus of the governed"), then you have a problem with the System itself.

Yes. As I keep posting, SCOTUS, in 1943, put it succinctly in paraphrasing the explicit purpose of the Bill of Rights...

Quote:
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
We don't need to go down the rabbit hole again over "no right is unlimited" in terms of the actual exercise of the liberties associated with any, given right. As has been discussed, everyday, we accept a compromise to our ability to act on our rights in the interest of and as a trade off for access to society-at-large. The emerging problem is that "The Left" has inculcated 2 or 3 generations with a perception of what is "acceptable" in terms of such a 'compromise' and it's something we're beginning to feel at the ballot box.

There is no recipe for 'instantly' de-programming those generations or 'taking it back;' be it education or the judiciary or whatever. That is another, fundamental flaw in what you posit; i.e., you feel that changing the rules means changing the game, giving you/us "the advantage." It won't. In fact, as I allude to, it might actually make things worse.

Anyway, as I have now said, you have premises which you are pushing that one must adopt to promote that which you espouse. If one "buys into" those premises, the argument works, mostly. If one sees the "flaws" in those premises, the argument doesn't work or, at the very least, doesn't work as promoted.

What you see as in need of 'correction' isn't a 'flaw' or 'mistake' of the Founders. It is, fundamentally, a facet of the People themselves. As we often opine, simply 'passing a Law' (or, as you argue, a 'careful alteration') won't, doesn't, and never has made a difference in the overall scheme of things. Criminals still get guns and still murder. Nefarious agents will always find a way to 'manipulate' whatever System is put in place. Put colloquially, the players may change and the rules may differ, but the game is still, essentially, the same.

In a sense, you aren't entirely wrong in terms of "two disparate groups cannot coexist in the same space." But, that's why 'balance,' as contextualized by our understanding of the System given us, is the goal, not perfection itself. Why? Because one man's perfection is another man's tribulation and the whole point was to address the question: "Can a disparate people live, thrive, and survive as a nation?"

Put another way, what you and I are debating is exactly the same things the Founders debated, that this country has debated, and the People will continue to debate. Given that fundamental rights are involved, it is a never ending saga...

Think of it this way... The Great Experiment isn't about 'winning/losing' as one typically thinks of it. It's about 'indefinitely'...


Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 06-07-2021 at 3:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-07-2021, 8:37 PM
LBDamned's Avatar
LBDamned LBDamned is offline
Made in the USA
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Free in AZ!!! yes, it's worth the Pain to make it happen!
Posts: 13,339
iTrader: 51 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyMtn View Post
Very good concept from a 2A perspective but this whole nullification of federal law by any state that disagrees is a dangerous concept. It started with immigration and marijuana and is now getting furthered with gun enforcement. Once that ball gets rolling there is no stopping it and pretty soon the federal government is moot. While I strongly believe the federal government is way too big I also don’t like the concept of states ignoring what they disagree with.
As long as you live in a state that aligns with your views, you have nothing to worry about.

What other states do - doesn't impact you.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MachineGuntongue View Post
Music is magic - Wisdom is golden - Learning to navigate life better as we age is amazing and a choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
It only has as much power as you give it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LBDamned
I know some things about a lot of things - and a lot of things about some things - but I don't know everything about anything
Quote:
Originally Posted by WartHog View Post
GET OFF MY CACTUS!
-----------------------------
"RIGHT POWER!"
http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w558/LBDamneds/Misc/III_zpsofbisb36.jpg
-----------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-07-2021, 10:55 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,646
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LBDamned View Post
As long as you live in a state that aligns with your views, you have nothing to worry about.

What other states do - doesn't impact you.
Well yes and no because once a precedent is set the state that you in live may not always align with your views.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-08-2021, 3:40 AM
LBDamned's Avatar
LBDamned LBDamned is offline
Made in the USA
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Free in AZ!!! yes, it's worth the Pain to make it happen!
Posts: 13,339
iTrader: 51 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
Well yes and no because once a precedent is set the state that you in live may not always align with your views.
Get involved.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MachineGuntongue View Post
Music is magic - Wisdom is golden - Learning to navigate life better as we age is amazing and a choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
It only has as much power as you give it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LBDamned
I know some things about a lot of things - and a lot of things about some things - but I don't know everything about anything
Quote:
Originally Posted by WartHog View Post
GET OFF MY CACTUS!
-----------------------------
"RIGHT POWER!"
http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w558/LBDamneds/Misc/III_zpsofbisb36.jpg
-----------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-08-2021, 12:41 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,002
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
That also speaks to your premise; i.e., that Democrats are 'destroying' the principles of the nation and, thus, the nation itself. Once again, that's a matter of perception, not fact. The truth is that they argue Republicans are doing exactly the same thing. Can both be true? Absolutely.

That is the 'imbalance' I keep referring to and why I said there is a 'pull' from both ends of the political spectrum. Rather than seeking balance, the political parties are seeking dominance, precisely the thing which concerned the Founders. Put another way, rather than a 'bell shaped curve' where the 'average' citizens finds their rights 'maximized' within the context of society, they, instead, find both sides looking to minimize the rights of the other.

Such isn't going to change because you "carefully tweak" the Constitution by building in what you consider 'absolutes.'
Why not? And what's your proposal? KcBrown has the distinction of being willing to at least give an idiocracy diagnosis which is a damn sight more than others who wring their hands will do.



Great, both sides ARE trying to screw us out of liberty. He's at least saying letting that happen without a fight is stupid let's try to stop that. What are YOU doing? What do YOU propose?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
You see, that's another 'flaw' or 'bias' with your premise. You keep referring to Democrats and Republicans as if each is an hegemonic group philosophically/ideologically. As is well established, they are far from it. Unfortunately, as of the moment, the 'moderates leaders,' in both parties, are far outnumbered (in many instances, due to a lack of perceived choice) and many who are attempting to claim that title are... well... wolves in sheep's clothing. (Much like Biden campaigning as a 'moderate' and, once attaining office, bending over backward to appease the Far Left.)

Which brings us back to the People; i.e., those who voted for them. Some of it is ignorance. Some of it is agenda. Some of it is cutting off one's nose to spite their face. Some of it is... A whole lot of things. (Just like the threads on this board pushing people to vote for Kamala Harris as a "junior Senator" so that she was out-of-the-state and 'minimized' in terms of power.) In many ways, it is similar to...
Stop weasel-wording. You use these weaselly words like "moderate" and "far left" and "radical" without defining terms, people, or your metrics. Spit them out or you're just redefining tall medium and short off your own "complicated, subjective to be fair" arbitrary standard. Stop avoiding being honest and give your definitions so we can judge if we agree with your subjective definitions you're treating as mysterious yet inarguable as the ark of the covenant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Actually, the noisiest are diametrically opposed. I still hold to the idea that the majority are not as divided as the media, the fringes, and those with agendas portray them as being. If we were THAT broken, on the whole, as a People... Let's just say that the System would have already collapsed, turned to dust, and we'd be exercising a form of authoritarianism or severe tribalism that would make works such as The Book of Eli or The Postman or 1984 or Minority Report seem like childrens' fairy tales.
Based on what? We already have local enforcement units that can shut down traffic and enforce politically and racially motivated beatdowns, shakedowns, and control of cities. Why does your idea of dystopia have to be uniform or highly competent at all places and times? Seems sorta historically ignorant. The Red Guards in China were haphazard, as were the Iranian youth and the Youth Revolt in the failing USSR. Maybe you're busy watching movies instead of looking to historical examples.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
That's the fundamental basis of the Great Experiment. It's why the Founders provided 'safety valves' and why they also provided the means for change. While you and I may not agree with or like the change, again, that does not, by definition, represent a "failure" of the System. Such a failure would be alteration in the manner you posit... "This needs correction, which can only be achieved through careful alteration of the system."
AHHH so the only thing that matters is the PROCESS, the OUTCOME can NEVER be a failure, only the PROCESS being changed to get a desired outcome is a failure. Got it, so if KcBrown torched the constitution but achieved the founder’s dream it would be a FAILURE, but if everyone still reads the constitution and cites it while we live in a slave ant colony then the great experiment is still working. Got it!

Good god this is pathetic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Here we go again. They DO NOT "fully control" the System. Evidence for that can be found in Trump's election. However, as of the moment, given the... for lack of a better term... 'cabal' of the media, the politicians, special interests, et al., I will grant that it can be difficult to see that. Just like "they disagree with the fundamental principles of the country" because they don't agree with or see things as "I" do? Yes. The Left does live in an 'alternate reality;' but, that is marked by interpretation more than disagreement related to the principles.
Yes. They. Do.
https://www.axios.com/off-the-rails-...d5eb3c6e2.html

https://richardhanania.substack.com/...ything-liberal

The left can get. Away. With. Treason. And. Nothing. Happens.

https://nypost.com/2020/11/13/diplom...ount-in-syria/

Trump also tried to screw with the federal reserve and put some goldbugs in there and was shot down. You simply won't state what your objective measures are because you WILL NOT BELIEVE IT BECAUSE EVIDENCE DOES NOT MATTER TO YOU.

You simply have a normalcy bias and investment in the system that you will not give up because evidence will not convince you of what you don't want to believe.

Process wise Trump did things that were ignored, countermanded, undermined, and spied upon that should have resulted in criminal charges and sedition or treason charges and heavy prosecutorial boot to enforce compliance. The fact the system did not do so violates your "process is all important" stance, and in fact shows that process fails because people running it are fundamentally cowards who refuse to impose consequences for violations of process OR violations of principle.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.- Upton Sinclair


Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
As I've said before, Heller is good example of exactly that. You have a majority and a dissent. Neither outright rejects the 2nd Amendment or even the reasons why it is there. Where the disagreement is located is in the emphasis placed upon the liberties to act upon the freedoms it recognizes. It's why Hillary and Obama can declare they 'support' the 2nd Amendment. What they don't tell you is that they support a different understanding of it than has been traditionally observed; the latter being the one we happen to agree with and is the one presented, as best he could with the hindrance of 'compromise,' in the majority.
Baffling with bull5hit. Sure, there's words on a page THAT DID NOTHING. Trump tried to pull troops out AND THEY DID NOTHING. The very fact that you insist words on a page and actual reality and actions are the same shows how grossly dishonest you are in regarding the left and right wielding the same power. Brown v. Board was very unclear and nonspecific in logic and in execution. The fact it was applied with ruthless efficiency had nothing to do with clarity of controlling SCOTUS language.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
It's going to be similar insofar as the People at large. There is no, one-size-fits-all, so long as it fits "me" solution. If you have a problem with "consent of the governed" (which, in many ways, is synonymous with "consensus of the governed"), then you have a problem with the System itself.
When the people governed have no say in how the government is allowed to change the electorate then you aren't dealing with honest government. Land requirements for voting used to make sure they couldn’t dilute this. The system where “land votes” not population did this also. Now we have a system that figures changing the electorate is a quicker way to success and there’s no answer from left or right how to not dilute the votes of existing people here. The consent of the governed was not obtained by the state of California with prop 187 nor in other cases like Prop. 8.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
What you see as in need of 'correction' isn't a 'flaw' or 'mistake' of the Founders. It is, fundamentally, a facet of the People themselves. As we often opine, simply 'passing a Law' (or, as you argue, a 'careful alteration') won't, doesn't, and never has made a difference in the overall scheme of things. Criminals still get guns and still murder. Nefarious agents will always find a way to 'manipulate' whatever System is put in place. Put colloquially, the players may change and the rules may differ, but the game is still, essentially, the same.
No, when you completely change the players around the table you change whether or not everyone agrees to play by all of Milton Bradley's rules of if they play by house rules. When you remove the ability to say who sits at a table, you have more fundamentally altered the rules than a simple set of box or house rules because now the liquor cabinet will either stay locked or it will be opened and drained. And this isn't part of the discussion because it's "uncomfortable" to talk about how this is a far more gross violation of the rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
In a sense, you aren't entirely wrong in terms of "two disparate groups cannot coexist in the same space." But, that's why 'balance,' as contextualized by our understanding of the System given us, is the goal, not perfection itself. Why? Because one man's perfection is another man's tribulation and the whole point was to address the question: "Can a disparate people live, thrive, and survive as a nation?"

Put another way, what you and I are debating is exactly the same things the Founders debated, that this country has debated, and the People will continue to debate. Given that fundamental rights are involved, it is a never ending saga...

Think of it this way... The Great Experiment isn't about 'winning/losing' as one typically thinks of it. It's about 'indefinitely'...
This is just dumb beyond belief, and an attempt to distract from the truth. Upwards of 90% of the America the founders created was British. Not UK, but BRITISH. The American Indians were NOT considered Americans and didn't achieve American Citizenship until the 20th century. The idea of "disparate people living together" was letting people live in a vastly underpopulated place, move to where government had virtually no control, and let them do things- and STILL we had the civil war between Mostly UK descended people having their freedom to live as they would stripped from them by mostly British descended people. You're trying to say things are similar to how they were back then when simply we are FORCED to live under despotic rules that the most mild-mannered founder would have sputtered in rage and righteous fury under. This is just simply ahistorical claptrap to try to tell people it's not that bad when the tyranny and hatred for one group by another has reached levels easily approximating the civil war, except people weren't dying at nearly 100,000 a year from opiates back then. Oh, and they make guns out as more of a problem than the opiates despite numbers because the people dying of opiates are also more the legal gun owners yet they still say taking guns is more consequential than taking opiates.

The level of propaganda here and denying reality is off the charts. Full damage control mode for the powers that be. Whew.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 06-08-2021 at 3:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-08-2021, 3:37 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,873
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Liberty is the primary foundational principle that the founders themselves repeatedly stressed the importance of, enough so that it's stated right there in the preamble of the Constitution. The preamble makes it clear that the Constitutional system exists to preserve and promote liberty. But as it is, the system fails at that core purpose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
As I've said, it's not "the System" which minimizes it, it's We the People and our representatives (politicians, judges, etc.) which have allowed for such 'minimization.' Just take a look at this Board. There's a whole lot of disagreement on a whole lot of topics. Yet, somehow, the site manages to survive. Why?
You clearly haven't thought this through. I meant what I said. Normal operation of the system minimizes liberty. Normal here means "as stated in the Constitution". Minimize means just that, it does not mean "extinguish". It means reaching a minimum.

Normal operation of the system means that Congress meets regularly, passes laws, and some/most of those laws are signed by the President. But a law is almost always a restriction upon liberty. As time goes on, the body of law builds. And builds. And builds. And liberty is ever more restricted. The rate at which restrictions are put into place vastly exceeds the rate at which they are lifted. This logically and inexorably leads to minimization of liberty. The only liberties that will be left will be those that either a vast majority of people believe need to be retained (enough so that they would kick out anyone who would dare impose restrictions on such liberties), or those that are explicitly protected by the courts through their interpretation of the Constitution. So, minimization.

This happens because despite it being a core purpose, liberty is not a first-class entity in the system. And it clearly needs to be. The founders failed to account for this because they didn't understand the fundamental nature of liberty itself. The fundamental nature of liberty is that restrictions upon any given thing are generally going to be objected to only by a minority subset of the population, because any given thing one might do is going to be of interest only to a minority subset of the population.


Quote:
Not the same 'path.' The same 'destination.' Such is the inevitable outcome of all forms of Government throughout human history.
I proofread my message multiple times and still didn't catch it. I meant to say "end". And obviously my argument is based on what I meant.

You presume that the tyrannical end is inevitable. And it is inevitable with respect to the forms of government that have thus far been implemented. But that's precisely because nobody who has implemented a government to date has both intended to protect liberty and understood the fundamental nature of liberty. The founders of this country at least claimed the first but didn't do the second.

The problem is that you're looking at this the same way as a politician who is concerned about how to make it look like he's doing enough that he'll be reelected, but who isn't actually accomplishing anything (in fact, because politicians can't campaign to fix problems that are already solved, they try to avoid solving problems). Save for his own reelection, he doesn't care about outcomes. But I'm looking at this as an engineer who is concerned with actually generating good outcomes even when he's no longer around. What we're talking about is a system, one which is defined by the Constitution. And designing systems to actually generate desired outcomes is what engineers do. Politicians don't do anything of the sort.

If the system didn't matter, then the founders wouldn't have bothered setting one up in the first place. But it does matter, enough so that failure to get it right can be catastrophic (e.g., Chernobyl -- and note that nuclear systems with those same problems were changed in response to that).


Quote:
The Founders specifically spoke to it, gave us mechanisms to ward off the inevitable, and bade us "Good Luck." That's the nature of the Great Experiment; i.e., an exercise in self-governance.

...

Actually, they anticipated precisely that, which is why they gave us the soap box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box.
The first three boxes are valid only when there is agreement about the underlying foundational principles of the system, precisely because their presence is due to those foundational principles. The fourth (cartridge box) is the 2nd Amendment that I already pointed out.

Like I said, you can't use the system itself to deal with the foundation-level disagreement that we see. People who disagree at that level cannot coexist under the same system, period. And make no mistake, there is that disagreement. You insist that it is just the "vocal" part of the Democrat party that has such disagreement, but that "vocal" part is the part that controls the party. Biden's reinstatement of critical race theory training in the government proves that. Biden's selection of Harris as a running mate proves that. You yourself have tacitly acknowledged that the anti-foundation faction of the Democrat party is in control by acknowledging that Biden is acting on their behalf after having run as a "moderate". That would not be the case if the trend were not heading in the direction I state.

And that's all I need to prove my case.

And what's your answer to that? The unsubstantiated assertion that such foundational disagreements can magically be resolved by working within the system. Well, I assert that they can't, and I have history on my side because even the founders themselves didn't. Rather, they fought a shooting war over it. And another later one (the Civil War) was fought over much less than that. If disputes such as those which kicked off the Civil War cannot be resolved within the system, then obviously foundation-level disputes can't.


Quote:
Think of it this way... The Great Experiment isn't about 'winning/losing' as one typically thinks of it. It's about 'indefinitely'...
The founders wanted to avoid tyranny above all else. Do you? If a tyrannical end is the inevitable result of the current system, then the experiment is by definition not about "indefinitely" and fails to serve the founders' purpose. The very fact that you say the above means that you, just like the founders, are looking for something other than a tyrannical end. And because a tyrannical end can't be avoided with the system as it is by your own admission, it must change so as to fulfill the founders' primary goal.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-08-2021, 5:59 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,641
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Why not? And what's your proposal?
Already stated, several times. The necessary mechanisms already exist, if the People avail themselves. If they don't, what's the point? If they want something more 'radical,' such as you and KC promote, THEN we have a different discussion to be had. Until then, promoting change simply because you don't believe the mechanisms are sufficient is a personal issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
...He's at least saying letting that happen without a fight is stupid let's try to stop that. What are YOU doing? What do YOU propose?...
What you are demonstrating is a frustration that you aren't winning, either the fight overall or this discussion. Just because you WANT 'something else' doesn't mean others have not offered or proposed viable alternatives. Suggesting a fight by 'The Marquess of Queensberry Rules' is still possible to win rather than having to resort to a 'no holds barred, in the gutter, scorched earth' street fight doesn't imply, insinuate, or even suggest a 'willingness to let it happen without a fight.' Quite the opposite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
Stop weasel-wording. You use these weaselly words like "moderate" and "far left" and "radical" without defining terms, people, or your metrics.
Continuing to insult me isn't a 'winning' strategy. "You're giving up without a fight" and "you're using weasel-wording" is indicative of YOUR 'extremist' stance rather than my position. In fact, it's an overt display of either being unaware of how 'far' you drifted toward that extreme or a fear of acknowledging it. In some ways, it's also ironic in that I'm constantly criticized for my 'walls of text,' yet you demand that I 'define' commonly used/understood terms (by definition, they do not represent a 'fixed' point, denoting a relative position on the political spectrum) or I'm "weasel-wording" and...

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
...Stop avoiding being honest and give your definitions so we can judge...
Now, I'm a 'coward' who is unwilling to fight. Someone with no alternative to propose. A mealy-mouthed, dishonest...

Uh... Have you noted how antagonistic, insulting, misrepresentative, et al. your argument is? No? Perhaps it would be helpful to remind you that when all you have are insults, misrepresentation, and antagonism to proffer, you don't have much of an argument to present? Instead, what you are promoting is raw emotion, attempting to tap into an anger/frustration held by who you perceive as the audience rather than to their reason. As I've maintained, all along, we're not 'there'... YET. In fact, that's where "the other side" is. Let's take advantage of that rather than join them.

The rest of your post is simply more ranting and raving in a similar vein. Just like...

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Why not? And what's your proposal?
Already stated, several times. The necessary mechanisms already exist, if the People avail themselves. If they don't, what's the point? If they want something more 'radical,' such as you and KC promote, THEN we have a different discussion to be had. Until then, you two are promoting the radical simply because you don't believe the mechanisms are sufficient or haven't worked... yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
...He's at least saying letting that happen without a fight is stupid let's try to stop that. What are YOU doing? What do YOU propose?...
What you are demonstrating is a frustration that you aren't winning, either the fight overall or this discussion. Just because you WANT 'something else' doesn't mean others have not offered or proposed viable alternatives. Just because someone has suggested a fight by 'The Marquess of Queensberry Rules' is still possible to win rather than having to resort to a 'no holds barred, in the gutter, scorched earth' street fight doesn't imply, insinuate, or even suggest that they are 'willing to let it happen without a fight.' Quite the opposite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
Stop weasel-wording. You use these weaselly words like "moderate" and "far left" and "radical" without defining terms, people, or your metrics.
Continuing to insult me isn't a 'winning' strategy. "You're giving up without a fight" and "you're using weasel-wording" is indicative of YOUR 'extremist' stance rather than my position. In fact, it's an overt display of either being unaware of how 'far' you drifted toward that extreme or a fear of acknowledging it. In some ways, it's also ironic in that I'm constantly criticized for my 'walls of text,' yet you demand that I 'define' commonly used/understood terms (which, by definition, do not represent a 'fixed' point, but denote a relative position on the political spectrum) or I'm "weasel-wording" and...

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
...Stop avoiding being honest and give your definitions so we can judge if we agree with your subjective definitions you're treating as mysterious yet inarguable as the ark of the covenant...
Now, I'm a 'coward' who is unwilling to fight. Someone with no alternative to propose. A mealy-mouthed, dishonest...

Uh... Have you noted how antagonistic, insulting, misrepresentative, et al. your argument is? No? Perhaps it would be helpful to remind you that when all you have are insults, misrepresentation, and antagonism to proffer, you don't have much of an argument to present? Instead, what you are promoting is raw emotion, attempting to tap into an anger/frustration held by who you perceive as the audience rather than to their reason. As I've maintained, all along, we're not 'there'... YET. In fact, that's where "the other side" is. Let's take advantage of that rather than join them.

The remainder of your post follows in the same vein. Just like...

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
You simply won't state what your objective measures are because you WILL NOT BELIEVE IT BECAUSE EVIDENCE DOES NOT MATTER TO YOU.

You simply have a normalcy bias and investment in the system that you will not give up because evidence will not convince you of what you don't want to believe.
Project much? I'm not the one who is 'unconvinced.' I post, all the time, about how out of balance, inappropriate, et al. things are. The difference isn't my lack of 'acceptance.' The difference isn't even found in my 'investment' in the System as it has existed from the Founding. The difference is in YOUR abandonment of the System as feasible and YOUR overwhelming desire for... something else.

You do understand that what you propose ALSO involves "processes," even to achieve the destination you seek. Without process, you have chaos and anarchy; bearing in mind that "the strong survive" isn't the omnipotent rule often proposed in such a situation. It's more along the lines of "the most adaptable, creative, flexible, et al." survive. That is generally what is meant by use of the word 'strong.' Along those lines, you make what you have work rather than standing around, ranting about what you don't have, aren't likely to be able to attain, and 'attacking' would-be allies to your efforts for not doing the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
...The fact the system did not do so violates your "process is all important" stance, and in fact shows that process fails because people running it... refuse to impose consequences for violations of process OR violations of principle.
Constitutionally, who has 'power' over the System? Those in office or those who put them in office? Did "the System" fail or did We the People fail to impel those in office to abide by the rules? While contemplating that, bear in mind that we do not live in a 'society as I, personally, define and agree with it.' We live in a democratic republic where others have a say in how things work. Ostensibly, that means the majority (not your personal take) rules, but, where the rights of the minority are protected.

Don't feel your rights are being protected or protected sufficiently? Then avail yourself of the recourse options. Don't feel they work? Isn't there recourse for that? Don't believe in them any longer? Uh...

What's your time frame? Didn't we just have a Federal judge (Benitez) give us a foundation to work our grievances through the System, on several related issues (magazines, so-called "assault weapons")? Don't want to be patient and allow the System to work as intended? That's on you and not necessarily indicative of a "failed System."

Put another way, I still see possibilities within the System; but, those possibilities, require patience and effort. They also require accepting that one isn't going to 'win' every round. You, on the other hand, promote a different system because you no longer see or believe in the possibilities. But, to achieve that different system, you must get others to believe as you do; i.e., that the System is fundamentally flawed, that it is a failure, that it must be 'abandoned' for something different. As I noted, it's the very narrative of those you oppose.

Where you diverge is in the "something different" each side claims to desire. That is where you and others have run into trouble. It's not about a lack of understanding. It's about aversion to risk. Something 'different' is an uncontrollable insofar as what you'll end up with. As I have told both you and KC in previous threads, something like a Constitutional Convention is, by its very nature, uncontrollable in terms of what will be changed and what those changes will be.

KC wants "careful alteration" of specific things. Okay. But, that doesn't mean such is what you'll end up with and he doesn't control that. You appear to want something even more extensive. You won't get to control that either. In fact, odds are that NEITHER one of you will be involved beyond choosing who represents yourself and others. If you're not directly involved, then what makes you believe that you can 'control' who represents you in that endeavor any more than you can 'control' those who currently do within the System we have?

That is the risk the majority are averse to. It's not about being overly comfortable with the familiar and afraid of the different. It's about knowing the 'rules' and how to work with and within that System as opposed to not knowing whether we'd even have a System or agreeing with and believing in a System "you" wish to create. Worse. You get in your own way in terms of the 'propaganda' YOU espouse in pursuit of that new system by creating the impression, some of it very real, that you would strip others of what they see as 'their rights;' in large measure, because you do not agree with the idea that they are 'rights.'

Such is evident in your posts when you rant about things such as Brown v. Board of Education, Prop 187, Prop 8, et al. not going "your way," then turn around and claim the same 'lack of consent of the governed' when Prop 63 (which won by a solid majority) is put in place. I agree that I don't like the outcome. I agree that I don't always agree with how the outcome was derived or interpreted. But, that doesn't necessarily represent "systemic failure." What it represents is ineffective use of the counter measures provided or, from a slightly different perspective, more effective use of the System than we've been able to muster.

However, that returns us to what I said earlier. That we need to learn to use the System to defend it at least as well, if not better, than "they" have learned to use the System against itself. It's what "the Left" learned 60 years ago; i.e., that if you want to change the System, you have to use it, particularly if you aren't necessarily in the majority. In fact, it's part of the problem they are currently having. It's one thing to be against the System. It's something else to be against the System when you ARE the System.

It's the very thing that even Joe Manchin is arguing, in his own way. You don't become the System to obliterate the System and you don't play by the rules of the System only when it is 'convenient' to your end(s), 'rationalizing' obliteration or playing fast and loose with 'the rules' with... "circumstances have changed." In fact, it's that type of thinking we decry when we speak about Living Constitutionalism in the Judiciary. It's the very thing you seem to espouse as part of your own rationalization...

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
...The idea of "disparate people living together" was letting people live in a vastly underpopulated place, move to where government had virtually no control, and let them do things... You're trying to say things are similar to how they were back then when simply we are FORCED to live under despotic rules that the most mild-mannered founder would have sputtered in rage and righteous fury under. This is just simply ahistorical claptrap to try to tell people it's not that bad when the tyranny and hatred for one group by another has reached levels easily approximating the civil war...
You can't know this, but I've said for nearly 30 years that a 'revolution' has been coming. The caveat I have always provided is that it is unknown whether it will be akin to the 'social revolution' of the 1960's or the Civil War of the 1860's. In a sense, I'd rather it be the former than the latter in that, even many on this board, enjoy some of the fruits of the 'social revolution' whether they realize it or not.

Does that mean I agree with ALL the changes which have been wrought. Absolutely not. What it means is that I accept that there will be trade-offs and those trade-offs are the 'uncontrollable' element, regardless of what you and KC feel can be 'controlled.' The Civil War alternative would introduce even more 'uncontrollable' aspects, along with even greater 'nastiness' that, today, are likely not as 'survivable' (as individuals and as a country) as they were in the 1860's. Again, regardless of how 'prepared' some feel they are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
The level of propaganda here and denying reality is off the charts. Full damage control mode for the powers that be. Whew.
Again... Project much? What I'm introducing is a dose of reality to the zeal of your own promotion. It's not damage control regarding TPTB. Actually, it's quite the opposite. It's a reminder that who you view as TPTB are not 'the power' for the System. That power is We the People and if you don't have that power behind you, the System doesn't work. Neither are proposed changes to the System going to happen (or happen for 'the good of all'), and it's something to be borne carefully in mind as one demands change.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-08-2021, 7:30 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,002
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Already stated, several times. The necessary mechanisms already exist, if the People avail themselves. If they don't, what's the point? If they want something more 'radical,' such as you and KC promote, THEN we have a different discussion to be had. Until then, promoting change simply because you don't believe the mechanisms are sufficient is a personal issue.
The people themselves have changed. The population of the USA is no longer the population of the historical USA and thus of course the legal mechanisms available to "the people" are of less value or use.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UFCW/commen...ocs_workforce/

The oligarchs have studied in depth how diversification of a people lowers social trust and makes collaboration harder and has specifically set out to do that. The very idea that people can't choose "their people" has been on the decline since Shelley v. Kraemer and concomitantly the ability to fight back and build, rather than merely destroy is basically gone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
What you are demonstrating is a frustration that you aren't winning, either the fight overall or this discussion. Just because you WANT 'something else' doesn't mean others have not offered or proposed viable alternatives. Suggesting a fight by 'The Marquess of Queensberry Rules' is still possible to win rather than having to resort to a 'no holds barred, in the gutter, scorched earth' street fight doesn't imply, insinuate, or even suggest a 'willingness to let it happen without a fight.' Quite the opposite.
I've substantively argued before, with links, that the system itself is basically foreclosed to the right. Check out some of my links, I'm happy to argue or provide more context or references, but you know, when I've actually provided links as to why the Democrats are able to win with the system as is whereas Republicans cannot, I get sort of tired of repeating myself when I already anticipated and rebutted your points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Continuing to insult me isn't a 'winning' strategy. "You're giving up without a fight" and "you're using weasel-wording" is indicative of YOUR 'extremist' stance rather than my position. In fact, it's an overt display of either being unaware of how 'far' you drifted toward that extreme or a fear of acknowledging it. In some ways, it's also ironic in that I'm constantly criticized for my 'walls of text,' yet you demand that I 'define' commonly used/understood terms (by definition, they do not represent a 'fixed' point, denoting a relative position on the political spectrum) or I'm "weasel-wording" and...
You define elected Republicans as "extremists" when the only extremity I see in elected Republicans is extreme anti-social plutocratic tendencies. Certainly nothing extreme right about them. I see no Congressional White Caucus, I see no demand for white reparations for expropriated slaves, I see no demands for white affirmative action after the country has been deluged by immigrants that make competition for the limited number of Ivy League seats more fierce. So no, I don't see the mirroring aspect on Republicans.

I've made clear, substantive, specific points. I ask you to do the same. I see very little specificity in the points you make and it's simply not a fair argument if one side is specific and one side is not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
The rest of your post is simply more ranting and raving in a similar vein. Just like...
Great. Make a firm declarative statement of what evidence would convince you it's "time" to tap into anger or overthrow the system. You point to the existence of a "process" as if a "process" is sufficient evidence that only the "process" should be used when I look and point out the "process" has failed repeatedly and won't work citing evidence and you talk more about the "process" with no new information I suppose it is accurate to say I believe I'm being stonewalled instead of answered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Until then, you two are promoting the radical simply because you don't believe the mechanisms are sufficient or haven't worked... yet.
Don't BELIEVE they haven't worked? Oh, this is subject to an epistemic DEBATE about if they've worked? Is Qanon secretly operating behind our backs and I'm the only fool who doesn't know it? Did the Democrats not get away with multiple violations of state election laws with no SCOTUS intervention, not even a harsh word not to do it again? Am I missing that the Military is in control and Biden wasn't elected? Golly, that WOULD make me a fool!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
In some ways, it's also ironic in that I'm constantly criticized for my 'walls of text,' yet you demand that I 'define' commonly used/understood terms (which, by definition, do not represent a 'fixed' point, but denote a relative position on the political spectrum) or I'm "weasel-wording" and...
What's my extremist stance? You're using a lot of ad hominem words, and were using them before I was, just in reference to parties without defining them. And yes, extremist is up for debate because apparently the FBI is considering extremists who believe in white supremacy (which Critical Race Theory is teaching is things like supporting Trump is white supremacy) to be the top terror threat and burning flags or writing words is being called violent... Yeah I would like a definition thanks, it might make the difference between getting gulag'd by the feds as I might be 2/3rds of the way to the definition already.
https://www.appropriations.senate.go...05-12-2021.pdf (Justice department considers white supremacist extremists top terror threats)
https://www.judicialwatch.org/deep-d...ite-supremacy/ (MAGA is white supremacy)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Constitutionally, who has 'power' over the System? Those in office or those who put them in office? Did "the System" fail or did We the People fail to impel those in office to abide by the rules? While contemplating that, bear in mind that we do not live in a 'society as I, personally, define and agree with it.' We live in a democratic republic where others have a say in how things work. Ostensibly, that means the majority (not your personal take) rules, but, where the rights of the minority are protected.
Failures of my forbears and my past mistakes are simply irrelevant when it comes to contemplating not allowing injustice and a bad system to continue. The attempt to shame me for the mistakes I may or may not have made is also a transparent tactic to shame a person take more abuse instead of demanding recompense. I don’t think past beatings mean a woman deserves to be beat again because she didn’t stand up at that time.

To quote famous Lawyers and the Saint of Civil Rights Martin Luther King Jr.

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied
https://infogalactic.com/info/Justic...justice_denied

The idea I need to subordinate my rights for other's conveniences or the system, or what have you was completely disproved in the 1960s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
What's your time frame? Didn't we just have a Federal judge (Benitez) give us a foundation to work our grievances through the System, on several related issues (magazines, so-called "assault weapons")? Don't want to be patient and allow the System to work as intended? That's on you and not necessarily indicative of a "failed System."
No, they had since Heller and refused to do it immediately. Gay Marriage moved like untreated HIV through the system and all opposition collapsed as fast as T-cells overwhelmed by the virus. The idea that I'm being unreasonable when Clarence Thomas HIMSELF has referred to the 2nd amendment being made into a second class right- as a BLACK MAN- is infuriating. I'd prefer if you actually pissed on my leg and told me it was raining to being told a black Judge who grew up poor in the south when Segregation was legal can't be trusted on if a right is being made second class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Such is evident in your posts when you rant about things such as Brown v. Board of Education, Prop 187, Prop 8, et al. not going "your way," then turn around and claim the same 'lack of consent of the governed' when Prop 63 (which won by a solid majority) is put in place.
Strawman and bull*****. I strongly agree with prop 63. The people in a plebiscite voted for it. The people in Prop. 187 and Prop 8 did not and undemocratic System elites stripped us of self determination. You of ALL people should appreciate it is a difference of process, not outcome. The strawman you made here would be large enough to protect a factory farm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
However, that returns us to what I said earlier. That we need to learn to use the System to defend it at least as well, if not better, than "they" have learned to use the System against itself. It's what "the Left" learned 60 years ago; i.e., that if you want to change the System, you have to use it, particularly if you aren't necessarily in the majority.
[…]
In fact, it's that type of thinking we decry when we speak about Living Constitutionalism in the Judiciary. It's the very thing you seem to espouse as part of your own rationalization...
The left did not win. They were thrown cultural victories the right acquiesced to and sold out their entire economic platform after Carter to Neoliberalism, i.e. finance capitalism and even before it was showing strong ties in the party. I'd refer you to James Burnham's Managerial Elite hypothesis. The people in charge are a Nomenklatura who are not even so much the owners of capital as they are managerial elites. If you want to know more beyond caustic slurs against how informed my opinion is, I'm happy to lower the temperature and have a wonkish discussion. If not I'm happy to keep the thermostat where it is or crank it up if you like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
You can't know this, but I've said for nearly 30 years that a 'revolution' has been coming. The caveat I have always provided is that it is unknown whether it will be akin to the 'social revolution' of the 1960's or the Civil War of the 1860's. In a sense, I'd rather it be the former than the latter in that, even many on this board, enjoy some of the fruits of the 'social revolution' whether they realize it or not.
The social revolution of the 1960s was the counterculture selling their soul to Mammon. I don't want bloodshed if it can be helped either, but the evidence is pretty overwhelming the left sold out for some social victories and the abandonment of their coalition in pursuit of 401(k)s and BMWs.

Quote:
I’m less alarmed by all of this because I have more confidence than Dreher and many other conservatives in the American establishment’s ability to co-opt and water down every radical progressive ideology. In the 1960s, left-wing radicals wanted to overthrow capitalism. We ended up with Whole Foods. The co-optation of wokeness seems to be happening right now.

[...]

The people at the C.I.A., Disney, Major League Baseball and Coca-Cola aren’t faking it when they perform the acts we now call woke capitalism. They went to the same schools and share the same dominant culture and want the same reputational benefits.
But as the discourse gets more corporatized it’s going to get watered down. The primary ideology in America is success; that ideology has a tendency to absorb all rivals.
We saw this happen between the 1970s and the 1990s. American hippies built a genuinely bohemian counterculture. But as they got older they wanted to succeed. They brought their bohemian values into the market, but year by year those values got thinner and thinner and finally were nonexistent.
I'm actually listening to the system, the powers that be, the mouthpiece of Oligarchs. This is a "Conservative" saying this. In the New York Times. This is not my imagination.
https://archive.is/d6tKi#selection-587.0-599.30
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 06-08-2021 at 7:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-08-2021, 8:17 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,641
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Liberty is the primary foundational principle that the founders themselves repeatedly stressed the importance of, enough so that it's stated right there in the preamble of the Constitution. The preamble makes it clear that the Constitutional system exists to preserve and promote liberty. But as it is, the system fails at that core purpose.
Again, don't confuse your personal assessment of your personal sense of liberty (which, again, is different than 'freedom') with 'systemic failure.' "Securing the Blessings of Liberty" in the Preamble isn't reference to absolute liberty to do whatever one wants, whenever one wants, however one wants. As we have extensively discussed before, 'freedom' is a state of mind and 'liberty' is the ability to act upon that state of mind. One's ability to act in that vein has ALWAYS been limited in relation to their desire to interact with society.

What Hamilton noted regarding "securing the Blessings of Liberty" was...

Quote:
Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.
As I've said, a more perfect union, not a perfect one. What did Hamilton argue, beginning in his very next sentence?

Quote:
But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?...
It's always been about a vigilant balancing act. It's never been about an absolute. But, once again, we are becoming repetitive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
You clearly haven't thought this through.
Bear in mind that there is a difference between "not having thought it through" and simply not agreeing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
I meant what I said. Normal operation of the system minimizes liberty...
As I said, such in the nature of ALL forms of government. You are not presenting some unique revelation gleaned from experience with our System of government. You are arguing the obvious, the known, and precisely what was predicted by the Founders. It's why, as I noted earlier, the Declaration states...

Quote:
...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...
You appear to be 'conflicted.' First, you argue that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
Liberty is the primary foundational principle that the founders themselves repeatedly stressed the importance of, enough so that it's stated right there in the preamble of the Constitution. The preamble makes it clear that the Constitutional system exists to preserve and promote liberty...
Then you posit...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
This happens because despite it being a core purpose, liberty is not a first-class entity in the system. And it clearly needs to be. The founders failed to account for this because they didn't understand the fundamental nature of liberty itself.
Uh... It was a basic foundational principle for them, even if they didn't understand it? Ummm...???

Again, it sounds more like a personal interpretation of 'desired liberty' than a 'lack of understanding' on the part of the Founders. Part of the reason such can be concluded is...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
The fundamental nature of liberty is that restrictions upon any given thing are generally going to be objected to only by a minority subset of the population, because any given thing one might do is going to be of interest only to a minority subset of the population.
Again, from the Preamble to the Bill of Rights...

Quote:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
In other words, a sufficient number of the Founders felt an incumbent need to speak to the freedoms (and the derivative liberties) involved for ALL, not just the majority/minority. In a sense, it was an effort to address Hamilton's 'warning' by proffering a sense of 'protection' related to the nature of government with regard to the inevitable 'minimizing' of liberties. Such appears to be not so much a 'lack of understanding,' but an acknowledgement that no 'perfect' system is possible when humans are involved. You even, to a point, acknowledge it yourself...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
You presume that the tyrannical end is inevitable. And it is inevitable with respect to the forms of government that have thus far been implemented. But that's precisely because nobody who has implemented a government to date has both intended to protect liberty and understood the fundamental nature of liberty. The founders of this country at least claimed the first but didn't do the second.
The difference between you and I (and the Founders) is that, at some point, you came to BELIEVE that a 'perfect' system is possible; so long as that system is created in the image you envision and functions as predictably as you propose. Without accusing you of hubris, let's just say that not everyone does or will agree with your definition of 'perfect.' That has nothing to do with...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
The problem is that you're looking at this the same way as a politician who is concerned about how to make it look like he's doing enough that he'll be reelected... But I'm looking at this as an engineer who is concerned with actually generating good outcomes even when he's no longer around. What we're talking about is a system, one which is defined by the Constitution. And designing systems to actually generate desired outcomes is what engineers do. Politicians don't do anything of the sort.
The problem is, as I just said and have been saying, the "desired outcome." You want a system as YOU desire it. Many will, to one degree or another, agree/disagree with you. As a result, whatever 'system' you design is going to represent a 'compromise' or you will not find sufficient support to construct and implement that system; let alone depend on compliance with that system. That is the difference between 'politics' and 'engineering.' Engineering is based, primarily, on 'dependable fact.' Politics is based on more transitory, amorphous, and alterable concerns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
If the system didn't matter, then the founders wouldn't have bothered setting one up in the first place. But it does matter, enough so that failure to get it right can be catastrophic...
Precisely. Where you differ is in how you view "getting it right." You want a certain 'rigidity' to the system that, so far as I can discern, is neither possible nor desirable. We often say that "freedom/liberty" involves "risk." What you seem to desire is elimination of the "risks;" particularly as regard what you, personally, perceive as your ability to act (liberty) on what you perceive as your freedom (state of mind).

You posit that the Founders didn't understand all this and failed to 'get it right.' I argue that they understood this precisely and developed what they felt (and what many argue) is the 'best' system possible. What you argue is the nature of that System, in its requirement for active vigilance and involvement by those most directly impacted (the People), is flawed due to disparate interests, concerns, and agendas. What the Founders and History have demonstrated is that the, as Uncle Ben told Peter, "with great power comes great responsibility." The People were given, or more accurately, claimed "the Power." With that power comes the responsibility to utilize it appropriately and effectively.

Have we been 'perfect' in relation to that responsibility? No. But, that was not the goal of the Founders; i.e., a more perfect union, not a perfect one. In point of fact, it is that very tension which results from the struggle which has proved one of our greatest assets as a country. Yet, you claim...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
The first three boxes are valid only when there is agreement about the underlying foundational principles of the system, precisely because their presence is due to those foundational principles. The fourth (cartridge box) is the 2nd Amendment that I already pointed out.
The first three boxes are valid in that they allow for disagreement and alteration of course. In point of fact, they are the exact 'boxes' you are reliant upon for the change you propose via a Constitutional Convention. If such boxes are invalid, then so is your proposal in that your proposal is premised upon them.

If you cannot persuade (soap box) a sufficient number to see it "your way," your proposal will go no where without a dictatorial decree. If you cannot elect (ballot box) a sufficient number of individuals to represent your viewpoint, it is going no where. Of course, if you could persuade a sufficient number and elect a sufficient number of representatives to see it "your way" and act accordingly, then what is the impetus for the change you propose? Just in case someone else is more persuasive and "they" elect representatives who don't see it "your way?"

Isn't that what the jury box is there for? Isn't that why many specifically voted for Trump; i.e., a more 'balanced' alignment of the Judiciary toward a more 'traditional' sense of what the System was designed around? Isn't that precisely a case of using the system in a manner you seem to feel it cannot be used...?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
Like I said, you can't use the system itself to deal with the foundation-level disagreement that we see. People who disagree at that level cannot coexist under the same system, period. And make no mistake, there is that disagreement.
Isn't that 'change?' It may not be as 'fast' as you (or I) would like. It may not be in complete sync with the 'destination' we'd prefer. Ultimately, it may not even be sufficient unto itself to achieve our desired end; but, that's something we cannot know, for now. What we do know is that it will NEVER be 'permanent' and must ALWAYS be watched and maintained in a manner similar to how a tightrope walker uses his balancing pole. Why? Because there will be 'moments' in the course of this country where...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
You insist that it is just the "vocal" part of the Democrat party that has such disagreement, but that "vocal" part is the part that controls the party. Biden's reinstatement of critical race theory training in the government proves that. Biden's selection of Harris as a running mate proves that. You yourself have tacitly acknowledged that the anti-foundation faction of the Democrat party is in control by acknowledging that Biden is acting on their behalf after having run as a "moderate". That would not be the case if the trend were not heading in the direction I state.
Note that I said "moments." Historically, there are many of those, not just in terms of this country, but throughout human history. Such isn't going to change because of any given system; regardless of how 'carefully altered.'

cont'd.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-08-2021, 8:17 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,641
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
And that's all I need to prove my case.
That's all you need to rationalize your own argument. To 'prove' your case, you clearly need MUCH more than what you are presenting. I don't need to 'prove' that. It's self-apparent. Not simply because of my 'resistance;' but, because you still don't have sufficient agreement to convene a Constitutional Convention or ANY assurance that such a Convention will be as 'controllable' as you posit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
And what's your answer to that? The unsubstantiated assertion that such foundational disagreements can magically be resolved by working within the system.
There's no 'magic' involved. Just hard work. In point of fact, your proposal is more akin to 'magic' in that it is largely based on the illusion of control over things which, by their very nature, are uncontrollable. That was the Founders' point and it was what they were 'rebelling' against and separating themselves from, a system which attempted to exert a form of control separate from the People themselves. You cannot create a 'perfect' system when you cannot control what that system is intended to manage. The 'best' that can be created is a system which allows those People to 'control' themselves; i.e., exercise self-government. Yet, such a system involves a certain 'flexibility' and 'adaptability;' something you propose 'removing' with your 'careful alterations.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
Well, I assert that they can't, and I have history on my side because even the founders themselves didn't. Rather, they fought a shooting war over it. And another later one (the Civil War) was fought over much less than that. If disputes such as those which kicked off the Civil War cannot be resolved within the system, then obviously foundation-level disputes can't.
That's one reading of History. It's not that they "cannot be resolved," it was that they "were not resolved" within the System. In point of fact, great efforts were being exerted to resolve them. It's why Lincoln's quote has resurfaced where he declared...

Quote:
...I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery...
A more 'traditional' reading of History is that the Civil War was an extension or derivative of the Revolutionary War or, more precisely, the debates which surrounded the Founding. Arguably, it's the same 'debate' which prompted this thread... States' rights vs. the powers of the Federal Government. Which is why I began my first post in this thread (Post #6) with...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
States' rights vs. perceived Federal overreach/unconstitutional actions has been a source of tension since before the Founding. As has been observed already, it's a two-edged sword, with pros/cons all the way 'round. Put another way, it's an imperfect system that has, mostly, worked fairly well...
It's what you and I are currently engaged in. You want 'perfection' and I acknowledge, as did the Founders, that 'perfection' isn't possible. You want to engineer something. Laudable. You may even be consistent with the Founders in that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
The founders wanted to avoid tyranny above all else.
But, what I am pointing out (and it's evidently struck a nerve) is that what you propose is its own form of 'tyranny.' How do I know that it's struck a nerve? Because of your accusation...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
Do you? If a tyrannical end is the inevitable result of the current system, then the experiment is by definition not about "indefinitely" and fails to serve the founders' purpose. The very fact that you say the above means that you, just like the founders, are looking for something other than a tyrannical end. And because a tyrannical end can't be avoided with the system as it is by your own admission, it must change so as to fulfill the founders' primary goal.
Yet... The System provided by the Founders has, as I have noted, inherent safety valves, means to alter inappropriate directions/actions, etc. Where we disagree is that you have "given up on the System" and think you can create a "better" one. I haven't given up on the System and don't believe a better one can be created - PROVIDED - We the People accept and adhere to our responsibilities. One of those responsibilities being to not 'give up on' or attempt to 'change' the System simply because we disagree with things "in the moment."

Therein lies your biggest problem. There are many, many moments in American History where a faction of society felt that things weren't going 'right.' That doesn't mean they threw out the baby with the bath water. In some instances, they followed a course similar to what you propose; they 'carefully altered' things, which is why we now have 27 amendments to the Constitution instead of the original 10. However, they did not 're-engineer' the entirety or a substantial portion of the System by doing "whatever it took."

Even the Civil War was felt to be a 'last resort' and was, in many respects, an unintended or, at least, undesired consequence. Succession was a statement, much like the 'succession' and 'sanctuary' movements today. The possible consequences were accepted as just that, possible, not necessarily inevitable and certainly not desired by any but a few.

What you are claiming is the Captain Obvious reality, one that the Founders openly acknowledged as possible... that any/all Governments will seek to 'minimize' individual rights up to the point of obviation of those rights. Since we are seeing that play out, in some form, yet again, you claim "TYRANNY!!!" and propose a solution... a 'solution' which is provided for and would be invoked using the very system you claim has 'failed.'

How does one utilize a 'failed system' as the basis for creating a 'new system' if the 'failed system' isn't working? You draw 'lessons' from that system? Okay. But, the lessons you purport are the very ones the Founders rejected as "tyrannical" unto themselves for the purposes they intended. You propose to eliminate that which cannot be eliminated, only mitigated, at best. But, as I have said, repeatedly, it is that very mitigation which has provided our greatest strength and, simultaneously, are greatest vulnerability.

With freedom (and liberty) comes risk. If you can't abide the risk, then you don't get to wallow in the freedom/liberty. In that sense, by attempting to eliminate the risk(s), you also reduce (minimize) the freedoms/liberty. Isn't that directly contrary to what you are proposing?

It's what I've been attempting to get you to see all along. Your argument is, essentially, that you want to 'save the System' by 'changing the System.' It's an inherent contradiction, which is why you often seem to be contradicting yourself and have to adopt a certain set of arguments as 'factual,' despite their being either subjective or implausible or incorrect or some combination. In response, you and your 'compatriot' on this thread, then accuse me of the very thing you are 'guilty' of.

My argument is that I want to 'save the System' by 'using the System.' The 'weakness' inherent to my argument is that it is dependent upon the People to accept the responsibility the Founders implicitly and explicitly placed on them. You don't believe they will accept it. I think it is still a plausible possibility and things such as Trump's election, the Tea Party, etc. are sufficient 'evidence' of that. One can even argue that the 'sanctuary' movements which created this thread is further evidence of that. But, such movements speak to the very questions I have proposed...
  • Where does the line need to be drawn and where can it be drawn without threatening necessary stability for both society and the country?
  • If the People are unwilling to accept their responsibility, what's the point?
Answered inappropriately, the existing System won't work (as you observe) and the one you propose might last, for a time, but ultimately, won't work any better. Either way, you will have a different society and country as a result and neither of us can 'control' what they will be.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 06-08-2021 at 9:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-08-2021, 11:32 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,641
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
The people themselves have changed. The population of the USA is no longer the population of the historical USA and thus of course the legal mechanisms available to "the people" are of less value or use.
No. They are not of "less value." Perhaps less well understood and, definitely, less well utilized. But, not of 'lesser' value.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
The oligarchs have studied in depth how diversification of a people lowers social trust and makes collaboration harder and has specifically set out to do that.
Linking to a Reddit thread related to diversity in the work force preventing unions is hardly conclusive 'evidence' of what you claim. However, once again, diversity has ALWAYS been simultaneously a strength and a weakness in regard to this nation. Just like the debacle involving the NRA, if existing divisions can be targeted and enhanced while members of the 'society' are not, simultaneously, given something to rally around or a touchstone to stay grounded, we can see the results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
The very idea that people can't choose "their people" has been on the decline since...
Since the beginning and before. Some would argue that the People now have greater choice. (How many "Republicans" are now looking to run against Newsom?) How many options did Trump 'defeat' to become the nominee? Why was he "the choice" as opposed to more 'traditional' candidates put up by "the Party?" While you and I might argue that the options were still "lacking," such is different than a lack of choices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
I've substantively argued before, with links, that the system itself is basically foreclosed to the right.
I would take issue with 'foreclosed.' Is it weighted against "the Right?" Certainly. But, as has been discussed on this board a number of times, it's not so much 'foreclosed' as it is that "the Right" has not found a way to produce to your satisfaction. (Or, to mine in some instances.)

Part of that is a differing agenda. You want results... Now. "Ignore the torpedoes, full steam ahead, consequences be..." Not everyone shares that mindset or sees value in it.

The Right controls talk radio. The Left largely control television, movies, and, as we are becoming aware and to an ever greater degree, the Internet. Although, even there, exceptions do exist and even stand out to some degree. Print media is a 'mixed' lot. Elections are dependent upon where one is standing.

If that mix were reversed, another, significant percentage of the country would be shouting the same things you are. Once again, that's why 'balance' was chosen rather than 'favoritism' toward a specific ideology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
...I'm happy to argue or provide more context or references, but you know, when I've actually provided links as to why the Democrats are able to win with the system as is whereas Republicans cannot, I get sort of tired of repeating myself when I already anticipated and rebutted your points.
Something tells me your happy to argue, period. You and I differ on the definition of 'rebut;' but, be that as it may, you have not obviated, negated, or proven my arguments false. You have simply expressed your opinion, rather obstreperously. Simply not 'agreeing' is not the same as 'proof' you are right and I am wrong or vice versa.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
You define elected Republicans as "extremists" when the only extremity I see in elected Republicans is extreme anti-social plutocratic tendencies.
Both are misrepresentation. I do not define all elected Republicans as "extremists;" though there are some, just as some (proportionately more at the moment) Democrats are extremists. What I have said is that both Parties are on different paths to the same destination and such is, inevitably, the workings of all governments; which is why freedom/liberty requires vigilance and that vigilance is inextricably tied to acceptance of responsibility, etc. As it was phrased in 1790...

Quote:
It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.
This is, in large measure, where your argument(s) falter. Your perceptions are not necessarily reflective of fact or reality...

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
Certainly nothing extreme right about them. I see no Congressional White Caucus, I see no demand for white reparations for expropriated slaves, I see no demands for white affirmative action after the country has been deluged by immigrants that make competition for the limited number of Ivy League seats more fierce. So no, I don't see the mirroring aspect on Republicans.
It's not about a 'mirror.' Extremism isn't solely measured by 'opposites.' You want definitions? Okay...

Quote:
Definition of extremism
1: the quality or state of being extreme
2: advocacy of extreme measures or views : RADICALISM
If it were as simple as 'mirror' imaging, as has been explored by many story lines in fiction, it would be far easier to discern. Extremism is measured by the distance or degree from a norm or center or, as we have been discussing, a 'balance point.' While Democrats have clearly perceived extremes by those of us who believe differently, so do Republicans have their own extremes. As I noted earlier, the Patriot Act was pushed through on a bipartisan basis, signed into law by a Republican, is supported by Republicans, has been maintained by Republicans... Yet, many on this very board see 'evils' and 'extremism' within the Act or the potential for both. In fact, FISA warrants are found in the Patriot Act and haven't we had innumerable threads decrying the use of FISA against...???

Didn't Dick Cheney, a long-time Republican, go after the 'keys' to Internet searches so that the Government could 'spy' on individuals? Didn't his daughter, someone in a leadership position within the Republican Party, openly work against a sitting U.S. President, claim that President incited 'insurrection,' and work to preclude that individual from Government ever again?

Aren't Republicans accused of "drill baby drill" for reasons? Don't Republicans favor "guns" over "butter" when it comes right down to it? Is abortion a right or not? SCOTUS has declared that it is and regardless of whether you or I agree with "how" they came to that conclusion, 2 or 3 generations now believe that it is. Do Republicans?

It's not about whether "you" agree with their position. It's about whether such a position agrees with the consensus; i.e., that 'consensus' ostensibly representing 'center.' It's why the Bill of Rights was created, to ensure that some things remained "at center" and not pushed to a 'perceived' extreme or, if that perception were to take hold, that those rights could not be obviated or infringed due to that perception "of the moment." In fact, that was the whole point of the Constitution, to lay out a 'center' point and give us the ability to maintain it within acceptable parameters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
I've made clear, substantive, specific points. I ask you to do the same. I see very little specificity in the points you make and it's simply not a fair argument if one side is specific and one side is not.
What you have presented are rationalizations and, often, just like your Reddit link, provided 'marginal' documentation in support to bolster your argument. You have repeatedly ignored the specifics I have provided, including quotes from the Founders, former Presidents, the Law, the Constitution, et al. That's not 'argument.' That's... "I believe what I believe and you don't. Thus, you are an idiot." Such is hardly persuasive discourse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
Great. Make a firm declarative statement of what evidence would convince you it's "time" to tap into anger or overthrow the system.
As SCOTUS opined related to pornography, it's something which cannot be definitively defined; but, you'll know when you see it. If it were something definitive, your argument would be in even bigger trouble in that you would have to move the goalposts were "they" to do 'everything but that;' otherwise, how would you 'rationalize' that it's "time" if they don't, strictly, meet that definition?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
You point to the existence of a "process" as if a "process" is sufficient evidence that only the "process" should be used when I look and point out the "process" has failed repeatedly and won't work citing evidence and you talk more about the "process" with no new information I suppose it is accurate to say I believe I'm being stonewalled instead of answered.
More misrepresentation. I've pointed to the System and the System has processes which can be and were intended to be used to defend the System. I have agreed that there have been times when those processes have not been utilized effectively; including today. The 'proof' you claim I don't cite is the fact that the System has worked, overall, for 245 years. The 'proof' you claim for your position are the exceptions and your personal disagreement with specific results. That's not 'proof' of systemic failure. That's proof of what I said, failure to effectively utilize the processes provided and a personal issue.

What it boils down to is that you want 'proof' that you will accept, which is a world removed from 'proof.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
Don't BELIEVE they haven't worked?
Sigh. As I just said... But, once again, we are becoming overly repetitive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
What's my extremist stance? You're using a lot of ad hominem words, and were using them before I was, just in reference to parties without defining them.
Once again demanding exacting definitions for commonly used/understood terms such as Democrat and Republican Party? What you are reaching for is something you can argue against; i.e., an ability to create more straw men, making something specific and contextual into my overarching argument. Do your own work in that regard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
And yes, extremist is up for debate because apparently the FBI...
By definition (see above), "extremism" is ALWAYS going to be 'up for debate' in that 'center' is a 'range' and not a definitive, fixed point. But, therein lies both the insidiousness and danger represented by extremist views and it's precisely what I said that kicked this whole thing off...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
Somewhere "in the middle" is where we aim to be as a country; but, there will always be "pull" toward one side or another related to specific aspects of society.
What you are expounding as 'failure' is actually the ever-present "pull." That "pull" is why we even have a Constitution and, as part of it, the Bill of Rights. Not only was it to protect the minority from a tyranny of the majority, it was to provide a sense of 'center' for society; a 'norm' which could be used as a measuring stick for 'extreme' views/machinations. However, as you will see in my responses to you and KC (if you'd care to read the quotes/references I provide rather than huff over my not buying your argument) it was made incumbent upon the people to 'maintain' that 'norm' (within acceptable parameters) or suffer the consequences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
Failures of my forbears and my past mistakes are simply irrelevant when it comes to contemplating not allowing injustice and a bad system to continue.
Yet, that's precisely what you continuously cite as evidence for the validity/virtue of your argument?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
The attempt to shame me for the mistakes I may or may not have made is also a transparent tactic to shame a person take more abuse instead of demanding recompense.
So, pointing out the weaknesses of your argument is now pejoratively and unacceptably 'shaming' you? I've heard that one before. Let me think...

cont'd.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 06-08-2021 at 11:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-08-2021, 11:33 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,641
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
I don’t think past beatings mean a woman deserves to be beat again because she didn’t stand up at that time.
You aren't 'standing up' to an abuser. You are looking to 'cancel' who you perceive as an abuser. There is a difference. In fact, it's what those who view (portray) YOU as an abuser are attempting to do. It's what I spoke to previously...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
Since condemning their 'side' for doing things wrong didn't work, might as well play it the way we condemn(ed) it for being played?...

...You get in your own way in terms of the 'propaganda' YOU espouse in pursuit of that new system by creating the impression, some of it very real, that you would strip others of what they see as 'their rights;' in large measure, because you do not agree with the idea that they are 'rights.'...
Just like reference to...

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied
If you want definitions, what is your definition of 'delayed?' If you respond, 'not immediate' (which is what, you have done)...

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
No, they had since Heller and refused to do it immediately.
...you are not only unrealistic, you are far outside both the System and the norm. Due process isn't "immediate," never has been, and was never intended to be. It was intended to be deliberate, impartial, and fair. Remember, the phrase is... "the right to a speedy and public trial." That speaks to a 'reasonable' time frame and transparency. While you and I may agree that, literally, "years" of delay tactics are "unreasonable," the System provides ways for dealing with that; though, as of now, we largely lacked the public will to do so. Examples would be more judges, splitting the circuits into smaller (arguably more representative) divisions, splitting states (again, arguably, into more representative regions), and similar.

In point of fact, such 'push back' is what created this thread; i.e., 'sanctuary states/localities' as a means to 'protect' the rights of individuals against an 'out of balance' Federal Government attempting to act in an unconstitutionally 'omnipotent' manner. The problem is that such a movement lacks not only true 'teeth' as it is more a political statement than a bulwark, it is a two-edged sword that can (and has been) used 'against' some things we also care about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
The idea I need to subordinate my rights for other's conveniences or the system, or what have you was completely disproved in the 1960s.
Yet, we do so EVERY SINGLE DAY. Why is that? Because it hasn't been 'disproved.' It's been shown, from before the Founding, as necessary to have a functional society. We've repeatedly been down this rabbit hole and the fact that you cannot accept that every one of us subordinates our rights, to whatever degree, on a continuous basis denotes the 'absurdity' with which you arguing.

The question isn't whether 'compromise' or what you refer to a 'subordination' is necessary. The question is how much can be demanded and enforced; by Government, by individuals, by business, et al. It's at the core of what is currently being discussed in reference to mask mandates, vaccines, carry, so-called "assault weapons," immigration, abortion, and a near infinite set of 'issues.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
Gay Marriage moved like untreated HIV through the system and all opposition collapsed as fast as T-cells overwhelmed by the virus.
So... They effectively used the System and "we" didn't. Is that a 'systemic failure' or a failure of something else?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
The idea that I'm being unreasonable when Clarence Thomas HIMSELF has referred to the 2nd amendment being made into a second class right- as a BLACK MAN- is infuriating.
I didn't know that the opinion of a "black man" gave additional credence to the obvious. Black, white, yellow, red, purple polka dot, Justice Thomas is a MAN and not universally correct. I admire him and respect his opinions. But, I don't always agree with them. While I acknowledge his frame of reference is different than my own, it does not, by default make it superior or more credible or even different.

Once again, you are utilizing the tactics we decry as inappropriate. While not overtly saying it, you are implying that I must be 'racist' because you agree with a black man and I disagree with your argument. No sale. Why?

First, I happen to agree with Thomas. Where you differ from both myself and Thomas is in the remedy you seek.

Second, as people can see from past posts, you are experiencing 'rage against the System.' Thus, anyone who doesn't agree with you, particularly in the moment, is wrong, blind, ignorant, etc. Yet, as I have just observed, you tend to 'contradict' yourself. Take this from a thread in March...

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
...It's a tiny bit more complicated than "left" or "right". Specifically, individual rights tends to be more of a lefty thing...

The individual rights the left pursues are generally ones that benefit the left or large donors or fracturing normal society. Gun rights isn't a fracturing thing like gay rights or free speech, but rather weakens the hand of the state, vs. weakening the hand of society. The courts simply don't limit the hand of the government but weaken pre-existing society.

The police can still racially profile, issue IQ tests, and carry guns where normal people cannot. Large corporations have effective end-runs around these issues.

The right does win things, like interstate commerce, like corporate speech, like corporate rights. Not individual rights that tend to align with traditional, non-capitalist structures.

The state has cops who get to carry guns and shoot people with state provided defense. Corporations and the wealthy can hire off-duty cops or retired ones and get broadly the same abilities. Normal people who have no right to protection from the state, and cannot afford to hire a cop are the ones screwed, vs. right to bear arms effectively creating the ability of militias to make police for towns suddenly less necessary and smaller societies economically viable.
Yet, you then differentiate Democrats from Republicans by the rights they focus upon; something I have noted from the beginning and something I have warned is not the standard, traditional or otherwise. You cannot differentiate 'rights' in terms of "they are evil because they want to eliminate rights I agree with and I am the Right Hand of God because I wish to eliminate 'rights' I don't see as rights or disagree with."

As an example, particularly in today's society, but historically as well, "gun rights" have been and continue to be just as 'fracturing' as gay rights, abortion, free speech, et al. We see it on this site every day. In fact, as I have noted, we can't even come to an agreement among ourselves as to what the 2nd Amendment protects or should protect. How do we expect to 'close the fissures' with society-at-large if we can't even come to an united understanding ourselves?

Yet, when I point such out, you scream...

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
Strawman and bull*****. I strongly agree with prop 63...
You do? You 'strongly agree' with... background checks for ammunition, a ban on so-called "high capacity" magazines, etc.? Doesn't that set you at odds with the vast majority on this site - Chance of Prop 63 Passing? Don't many on this site refer to it as a 'systemic failure' in reference to our inability to get it overturned? (If you were thinking of something else and want to blame me for not specifically linking to Prop 63, give me a break. Mention Prop 63 on this site and virtually everyone knows to what you are referring.)

So, when you declare...

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
The people in a plebiscite voted for it. The people in Prop. 187 and Prop 8 did not and undemocratic System elites stripped us of self determination. You of ALL people should appreciate it is a difference of process, not outcome. The strawman you made here would be large enough to protect a factory farm.
Ummm.... It's the same 'process' we went through with 187 and 8 respectively. In a sense, we 'lost' in all three.
  • 187 passed with a vote of 5,063,537 yes, 3,529,432 no. 187 was found 'unconstitutional' and while it was on appeal, it was withdrawn in favor of mediation, effectively killing it.
  • 8 passed with a vote of 7,001,084 yes, 6,401,482 no. The process challenges have been more 'mixed;' but, it too was declared unconstitutional and, in some important respects, national-level legislation and court decisions have bolstered that view.
  • 63 passed with a vote of 8,663,159 yes, 5,070,772 no. The fight is ongoing, even though we've 'scored' with Judge Benitez.
It's called 'checks and balances.' Have a problem with that, take it up with the Founders and common sense. What I was pointing out is that you seem to have a certain inconsistency in your thinking or, more accurately, a penchant for declaring 'evil' that which you disagree with and 'righteous' that which you agree with. As I said, that's not the way 'rights' work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
The left did not win. They were thrown cultural victories the right acquiesced to and sold out their entire economic platform after Carter to Neoliberalis...
Win and lose, as I suggested in my earlier reply to KC, is a matter of perspective. In the video I provided, that was the basis. Strictly speaking, as many think of it, Data didn't 'win.' Yet, he didn't exactly 'lose' either. In a broader sense, he "busted him up" because he forced a stalemate, not allowing for a 'victory' by his opponent. Isn't that exactly what we're experiencing; i.e., not being 'allowed' a 'victory' on certain issues?

You want to play the game the way they do, then you'd better understand the game. By denying us victory, we effectively lose in the eyes of many. By denying them victory, we don't necessarily 'win' in the sense that we don't necessarily get what we want. In that sense, it's not about 'win/lose.' It's about maintaining an acceptable balance point 'indefinitely;' bearing in mind that, as I have said, that balance point is a range and not a fixed point. Don't like the point it currently rests upon, then the System allows for alteration of the point, if you can move it.

What it resists as inappropriate to the 'health' of the System is a point on an 'extreme.' Why? That is not 'balance' and such creates/ensures conflict rather than 'moderates.' Remember, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not and never have been about your 'freedoms' or even your 'rights.' They are about your 'liberties' set against the needs of society. That's what the Federal Government was put in place to do... "maintain an overall balance," not 'favor' one individual/group/philosophy over another on an indefinite basis.

What you see/point to as 'failure' is the inevitable 'ebb and flow' associated with maintaining balance. As I said, don't like the balance point, move it. But, the Constitution/Bill of Rights only allows it to be moved in certain ways and within a certain range so that it is neither easily moved nor moved to an destabilizing extreme. It's what we often refer to as the pendulum swing. If you don't like the direction of the swing, you don't eliminate the pendulum, you stop the momentum and start it in a different direction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
If you want to know more beyond caustic slurs against how informed my opinion is, I'm happy to lower the temperature and have a wonkish discussion. If not I'm happy to keep the thermostat where it is or crank it up if you like.
I thought we were having a spirited discussion. If you believe you are in an heated exchange where the winner takes it all and the opposition must be destroyed, you're in the wrong place and arguing with History rather than using it to show how 'wrong' I am.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
The social revolution of the 1960s was the counterculture selling their soul to Mammon. I don't want bloodshed if it can be helped either, but the evidence is pretty overwhelming the left sold out for some social victories and the abandonment of their coalition in pursuit of 401(k)s and BMWs.
That wasn't what the social revolution of the 1960's was about and while some did end up 'selling out,' that was not the overall result. In fact, what they learned was that they couldn't 'replace or change' the System from without, so they became part of it to use it against itself. If I have to provide specific examples of that, you're too far out of touch to be competent in this discussion.

What you are pointing to are the 'sell outs' or those who used the 'revolution' for their own ends or became seduced by what they were against... Much like you posit with "use their tactics." You appear to be envious of their success and figure "if it worked for them..."

What I'm arguing is that if they made and are making it work for them, then we'd best get with the program and make it work for us. Otherwise, we're likely to find ourselves in the same position they were 50 years ago; realizing that we can't 'replace or change' the System from without and, if we try, not only do we make ourselves 'the bad guys,' the price is going to be far more hideous than we'd care to pay.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 06-09-2021 at 12:06 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-09-2021, 1:02 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,002
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Linking to a Reddit thread related to diversity in the work force preventing unions is hardly conclusive 'evidence' of what you claim. However, once again, diversity has ALWAYS been simultaneously a strength and a weakness in regard to this nation.
You're lazy and not willing to deal with my sources in good faith. That was a test of how bad faith you are. You lived down to my expectations beautifully.

Quote:
Store-risk metrics include average store compensation, average total store sales, and a “diversity index” that represents the racial and ethnic diversity of every store. Stores at higher risk of unionizing have lower diversity and lower employee compensation, as well as higher total store sales and higher rates of workers’ compensation claims, according to the documents.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/20/2...heat-map-union
Believe it or not I was making it easy on you by giving a source that the headline covered the important part, the others bury the unpopular facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
I would take issue with 'foreclosed.' Is it weighted against "the Right?" Certainly. But, as has been discussed on this board a number of times, it's not so much 'foreclosed' as it is that "the Right" has not found a way to produce to your satisfaction. (Or, to mine in some instances.)
Of COURSE you take issue with ANY judgement I make, and regardless of facts I use, analysis I have it's all "up for debate" or "subjective" and yet your hypothesis that the system is fine is NOT FALSIFIABLE. You believe in the religion of the constitution and Der Process. Otherwise you'd give me concrete topics or concrete things to talk about. There is less substance to what you say than my state report in 5th grade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
If that mix were reversed, another, significant percentage of the country would be shouting the same things you are. Once again, that's why 'balance' was chosen rather than 'favoritism' toward a specific ideology.
See? You care more about balance than principles. Which is why there is nothing concrete because you put a finger to the wind and sway that direction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Something tells me your happy to argue, period. You and I differ on the definition of 'rebut;' but, be that as it may, you have not obviated, negated, or proven my arguments false. You have simply expressed your opinion, rather obstreperously. Simply not 'agreeing' is not the same as 'proof' you are right and I am wrong or vice versa.
You cite no sources. You give no objective standards. You're a hostile bull5hitter that's here to waste time and has nothing to offer anyone except "trust the plan". You're offering Qanon trust without even a good story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Both are misrepresentation. I do not define all elected Republicans as "extremists;" though there are some,
And you put the word "all" in there. You're a liar and making 5hit up. I clearly said that there were NO elected extremist republicans at ALL (and to clarify: I mean at the congressional level). You're the one claiming I said you think ALL republicans are extremist. You're just putting words in my mouth and call me the uncouth one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
This is, in large measure, where your argument(s) falter. Your perceptions are not necessarily reflective of fact or reality...
No, yours aren't. I offer a future and explain why your way doesn't work. You criticize me and offer no path forward or way for republicans to succeed. You just argue and present no alternative just that I'm wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Didn't Dick Cheney, a long-time Republican, go after the 'keys' to Internet searches so that the Government could 'spy' on individuals? Didn't his daughter, someone in a leadership position within the Republican Party, openly work against a sitting U.S. President, claim that President incited 'insurrection,' and work to preclude that individual from Government ever again?
Sure. Are these extremists or not? You haven't defined WHO an extremist IS because you avoid ANY specificity which makes you in fact DISHONEST. Honest people make easy to follow arguments or point to who is extremist and who is not so people can easily orient themselves instead of writing walls of text and definitional mush- the walls of text are making up for the lack of simple clarity that naming people would bring, but would box you in and not let you tiptoe away if proved wrong or if people disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
It's not about whether "you" agree with their position. It's about whether such a position agrees with the consensus; i.e., that 'consensus' ostensibly representing 'center.' It's why the Bill of Rights was created, to ensure that some things remained "at center" and not pushed to a 'perceived' extreme or, if that perception were to take hold, that those rights could not be obviated or infringed due to that perception "of the moment." In fact, that was the whole point of the Constitution, to lay out a 'center' point and give us the ability to maintain it within acceptable parameters.
That's silly beyond belief. The bill of rights had nothing to do with centrism. It had to do with RADICAL EXTREMIST anti-federalists who didn't want to give your favorite founding father the Authoritarian finance-capitalism cheerleader Bank of the US Alexander Hamilton a blank check to destroy the rights of normal people. The very fact that the bill of rights was not passed in the original constitutional convention demonstrates the complete LACK of balance, and the constitutional convention was, in fact, a minor coup that was secretly foisted upon the members.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
What you have presented are rationalizations and, often, just like your Reddit link, provided 'marginal' documentation in support to bolster your argument. You have repeatedly ignored the specifics I have provided, including quotes from the Founders, former Presidents, the Law, the Constitution, et al. That's not 'argument.' That's... "I believe what I believe and you don't. Thus, you are an idiot." Such is hardly persuasive discourse.
More than you provide cupcake. All you do is criticize and offer nothing. You're like a dry prune art critic who never achieved any creation themself and is self-loathing enough that all you have is disdain and vinegar for anyone who does try. You're an elitist toff who has nothing to offer anyone, and managed to reach the point of pissing of KcBrown because of your complete haughty and dishonest manner- which to date I believe I've only seen MrRabbit achieve. But I'm sure you've got high quality wines in the basement, a 7+ figure home, and nothing I say or do will ever amount to anything noteworthy or convincing for you so there's literally no point to me talking to you except pointing out what a waste dialogue with you is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
As SCOTUS opined related to pornography, it's something which cannot be definitively defined; but, you'll know when you see it. If it were something definitive, your argument would be in even bigger trouble in that you would have to move the goalposts were "they" to do 'everything but that;' otherwise, how would you 'rationalize' that it's "time" if they don't, strictly, meet that definition?
Does that actually make sense to anyone else here? Anyone? I mean... wow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Once again demanding exacting definitions for commonly used/understood terms such as Democrat and Republican Party? What you are reaching for is something you can argue against; i.e., an ability to create more straw men, making something specific and contextual into my overarching argument. Do your own work in that regard.



By definition (see above), "extremism" is ALWAYS going to be 'up for debate' in that 'center' is a 'range' and not a definitive, fixed point. But, therein lies both the insidiousness and danger represented by extremist views and it's precisely what I said that kicked this whole thing off...
You can't and won't talk plainly. That's just plain dishonest. You're refusing to play honestly and define real terms. As Wittgenstein said, when we can't agree on definitions we can't agree to anything and all that is left is war. The very slippery oily gelatinous oozing you do because you simply won't agree to terms says you are hostile and dishonest. Of course if I linked to Wittgenstein you wouldn't read and dismiss it so I'll save myself the trouble.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
What you are expounding as 'failure' is actually the ever-present "pull." That "pull" is why we even have a Constitution and, as part of it, the Bill of Rights. Not only was it to protect the minority from a tyranny of the majority, it was to provide a sense of 'center' for society; a 'norm' which could be used as a measuring stick for 'extreme' views/machinations.
Complete insistence on YOUR redefinition of words. There is no productive debate here. Notice how this is the closest Trapped will get to actually defining a word, not when asked but when to say I'm stupid because my word use is wrong or misrepresentation, yet as soon as HE is asked for a standard suddenly all there is is "well it depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is."

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
However, as you will see in my responses to you and KC (if you'd care to read the quotes/references I provide rather than huff over my not buying your argument) it was made incumbent upon the people to 'maintain' that 'norm' (within acceptable parameters) or suffer the consequences.
Great, and if the people didn't maintain it, what then? They have to passively suffer consequences without fighting? You say less with more words than anyone I've seen on this site.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Yet, that's precisely what you continuously cite as evidence for the validity/virtue of your argument?

So, pointing out the weaknesses of your argument is now pejoratively and unacceptably 'shaming' you? I've heard that one before. Let me think...
No you're just lying and putting words in my mouth... I'm saying past failures of forbears are irrelevant to the moral right to act to fix them today. Or are you arguing for generational blood curses now? Sins of the fathers impact the sons now and fighting these negative consequences is wrong? You make no argument except I'm wrong, a fool, and the system is fine and proof is for peons like me and my proof is worth less than your mere assertions.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 06-09-2021 at 1:04 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-09-2021, 1:10 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,002
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
If you want definitions, what is your definition of 'delayed?' If you respond, 'not immediate' (which is what, you have done)...
...you are not only unrealistic, you are far outside both the System and the norm.
See? Already you admit there's a different standard I can expect from the justice system compared to civil rights in the 1960s. I knew eventually you'd let slip your biases and lack of equal justice and consideration for groups!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Due process isn't "immediate," never has been, and was never intended to be. It was intended to be deliberate, impartial, and fair. Remember, the phrase is... "the right to a speedy and public trial." That speaks to a 'reasonable' time frame and transparency. While you and I may agree that, literally, "years" of delay tactics are "unreasonable," the System provides ways for dealing with that; though, as of now, we largely lacked the public will to do so. Examples would be more judges, splitting the circuits into smaller (arguably more representative) divisions, splitting states (again, arguably, into more representative regions), and similar.
And yet the civil rights act showed when the system is compelled to or want to it can act as fast and as furiously as it wants. You tell me that I can't expect the system to act competently for my interests and then cite the Patriot act and all sorts of system competence that show we in fact do NOT have an incompetent government, just one that REFUSES to be competent for MY interests.

Not for your benefit because everything I say is stupid, wrong, miscontrued and no citation I make has merit, but there is a WONDERFUL essay for the audience who might read it (long though)
https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/a...ranny-u-s-a-5/

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Yet, we do so EVERY SINGLE DAY. Why is that? Because it hasn't been 'disproved.' It's been shown, from before the Founding, as necessary to have a functional society. We've repeatedly been down this rabbit hole and the fact that you cannot accept that every one of us subordinates our rights, to whatever degree, on a continuous basis denotes the 'absurdity' with which you arguing.
Keyboard commando bravely putting words in my mouth. Freedom, not rights are to be subordinated. This is why I insist on defining words so these conflicts and attempts to elide honest discussion are headed off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
The question isn't whether 'compromise' or what you refer to a 'subordination' is necessary. The question is how much can be demanded and enforced; by Government, by individuals, by business, et al. It's at the core of what is currently being discussed in reference to mask mandates, vaccines, carry, so-called "assault weapons," immigration, abortion, and a near infinite set of 'issues.'
So then it becomes rather OBVIOUS then that not breaking the law and getting away with it is, in fact, a powerful way to secure rights, from the sanitized version of "civil" disobedience we're told about in the boycotts to the outright riots of Stonewall, being able to break laws and get away with it is, in fact, a proof and creation of sovereignty. At least we agree on something. We probably disagree if that's a tool we should look at, but hey, at last we got a point of agreement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
So... They effectively used the System and "we" didn't. Is that a 'systemic failure' or a failure of something else?
You can go back to the Hanania link I had, but yes, systemically the right is not composed of pro-social people that use systems effectively. I'd provide sources for what I'm arguing but nothing I link to can have any merit to you so why bother? Others can follow Hanania's work and figure what I'm saying- and ask. I'm open and pretty friendly actually!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
I didn't know that the opinion of a "black man" gave additional credence to the obvious. Black, white, yellow, red, purple polka dot, Justice Thomas is a MAN and not universally correct. I admire him and respect his opinions. But, I don't always agree with them. While I acknowledge his frame of reference is different than my own, it does not, by default make it superior or more credible or even different.
OF COURSE he has more credence! Critical Race Theory inaugurates this and since Biden the moderate reinstated CRT in federal places, it's a moderate policy so one you should be familiar with if not in favor of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Once again, you are utilizing the tactics we decry as inappropriate. While not overtly saying it, you are implying that I must be 'racist' because you agree with a black man and I disagree with your argument. No sale. Why?
CRT my man. You're not decrying it, and you're focused on balance, so hey, I'm not gonna assume you're against it when you've had repeated opportunities and said nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
You cannot differentiate 'rights' in terms of "they are evil because they want to eliminate rights I agree with and I am the Right Hand of God because I wish to eliminate 'rights' I don't see as rights or disagree with."
And why not? That's what one side is doing, and rather effectively. The fact it is happening in fact disproves that you cannot- because reality shows you can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
As an example, particularly in today's society, but historically as well, "gun rights" have been and continue to be just as 'fracturing' as gay rights, abortion, free speech, et al. We see it on this site every day. In fact, as I have noted, we can't even come to an agreement among ourselves as to what the 2nd Amendment protects or should protect. How do we expect to 'close the fissures' with society-at-large if we can't even come to an united understanding ourselves?
Really? We have federal hate crime charges for those who burn a Molon Labe flag? We have hate crime charges and enhanced penalties for people blocking or physically impeding people from getting into gun stores and gun ranges? Tell me more, I want to know where this land that gun rights are just as fractured as gay rights, abortion, and free speech and receive the deference and federal assistance these rights receive!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
You 'strongly agree' with[/URL]... background checks for ammunition, a ban on so-called "high capacity" magazines, etc. [...] (If you were thinking of something else and want to blame me for not specifically linking to Prop 63, give me a break. Mention Prop 63 on this site and virtually everyone knows to what you are referring.)
Yeah, I was thinking of the shoplifting under $1000 is basically decriminalized. I've stopped paying attention to old violations of gun rights that aren't going away anytime soon. I won't blame you for not linking, but it sure would be helpful if you did briefly mention the ammo background checks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Ummm.... It's the same 'process' we went through with 187 and 8 respectively. In a sense, we 'lost' in all three.
No, a ballot proposition being signed into law is completely different process than the CA AG refusing to do anything with the law and just basically hold it hostage. That's a different process than sending it on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
It's called 'checks and balances.' Have a problem with that, take it up with the Founders and common sense.
No, that's silly and ridiculous. There are plenty of other options including the article V and open warfare, which in fact is what got secession banned and slavery to boot. The fact is the civil war was either a legitimate process to get laws passed that couldn't be passed while the southern states were part of the Union, or it was an illegitimate process and the laws themselves are illegitimate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
What I was pointing out is that you seem to have a certain inconsistency in your thinking or, more accurately, a penchant for declaring 'evil' that which you disagree with and 'righteous' that which you agree with. As I said, that's not the way 'rights' work.
That's silly and demonstrably wrong. Brown V. Board was declared righteous with very little factual reasoning and Eisenhower sent federal troops to shoot southerners because it was 'evil' to oppose the 'righteous' court rulings. Seems like rights can be created with violence and declarations of righteousness and not. Even justice Kennedy declared the righteousness of gay marriage, oh excuse me "dignity" which is itself a softer, less ebullient form of *righteousness*.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Win and lose, as I suggested in my earlier reply to KC, is a matter of perspective.
This post-structuralism itself means there is no definitive yes or no, and itself has shown it's corrosive qualities to building consensus or a stable society where people can agree to do things affirmatively; it atomizes at a cost of being able to agree on anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
In the video I provided, that was the basis. Strictly speaking, as many think of it, Data didn't 'win.' Yet, he didn't exactly 'lose' either. In a broader sense, he "busted him up" because he forced a stalemate, not allowing for a 'victory' by his opponent. Isn't that exactly what we're experiencing; i.e., not being 'allowed' a 'victory' on certain issues?
No... we're just not getting what we want. I'd cite Carl Schmitt but it would be a waste of time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
You want to play the game the way they do, then you'd better understand the game. By denying us victory, we effectively lose in the eyes of many. By denying them victory, we don't necessarily 'win' in the sense that we don't necessarily get what we want. In that sense, it's not about 'win/lose.' It's about maintaining an acceptable balance point 'indefinitely;' bearing in mind that, as I have said, that balance point is a range and not a fixed point. Don't like the point it currently rests upon, then the System allows for alteration of the point, if you can move it.

What it resists as inappropriate to the 'health' of the System is a point on an 'extreme.' Why? That is not 'balance' and such creates/ensures conflict rather than 'moderates.' Remember, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not and never have been about your 'freedoms' or even your 'rights.' They are about your 'liberties' set against the needs of society. That's what the Federal Government was put in place to do... "maintain an overall balance," not 'favor' one individual/group/philosophy over another on an indefinite basis.

What you see/point to as 'failure' is the inevitable 'ebb and flow' associated with maintaining balance. As I said, don't like the balance point, move it. But, the Constitution/Bill of Rights only allows it to be moved in certain ways and within a certain range so that it is neither easily moved nor moved to an destabilizing extreme. It's what we often refer to as the pendulum swing. If you don't like the direction of the swing, you don't eliminate the pendulum, you stop the momentum and start it in a different direction.
I can't express how much I disagree with all this... but I consider this honest. I consider this honest, earnest dialectic that actually is a positive position as far as you have one. This is an affirmative declarative of where you stand and what you stand for. And i've written this section by section, so my vitriol above was as honest as my gratitude here for actually saying what you mean and believe. Thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
I thought we were having a spirited discussion. If you believe you are in an heated exchange where the winner takes it all and the opposition must be destroyed, you're in the wrong place and arguing with History rather than using it to show how 'wrong' I am.
I enjoy conversations from frigid to nuclear reaction. I was making an offer I sometimes do when people express that the conversation seems to be "stuck" either too intellectual, too vicious, or too gossipy that I can always change the thermostat and how.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
That wasn't what the social revolution of the 1960's was about and while some did end up 'selling out,' that was not the overall result. In fact, what they learned was that they couldn't 'replace or change' the System from without, so they became part of it to use it against itself. If I have to provide specific examples of that, you're too far out of touch to be competent in this discussion.
I'd argue they lost particular parts, even the radicals. I'll specifically talk about May 19, Weather Underground, and that crowd if you like. They are implementing plans that are decades old, but they did lose certain things in the intervening decades and that is not from out of touch or ignorance but from actual study.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
What you are pointing to are the 'sell outs' or those who used the 'revolution' for their own ends or became seduced by what they were against... Much like you posit with "use their tactics." You appear to be envious of their success and figure "if it worked for them..."

What I'm arguing is that if they made and are making it work for them, then we'd best get with the program and make it work for us.
What's the difference between these two positions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Otherwise, we're likely to find ourselves in the same position they were 50 years ago; realizing that we can't 'replace or change' the System from without and, if we try, not only do we make ourselves 'the bad guys,' the price is going to be far more hideous than we'd care to pay.
Well... feel free to speak for yourself on that, and I agree you probably ARE being honest the price is far more hideous than you'd be willing to pay and you don't want to be made into the bad guy. I'll agree that's true.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 06-09-2021 at 1:14 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-09-2021, 3:31 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,641
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
You're lazy and not willing to deal with my sources in good faith. That was a test of how bad faith you are. You lived down to my expectations beautifully.
Well, I guess the 'conversation' and the 'discussion' are over. You've fallen back on invective, overt misrepresentation, emotion, straw men, projection, et al. Huh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
Of COURSE you take issue with ANY judgement I make, and regardless of facts I use, analysis I have it's all "up for debate" or "subjective"...

You believe in the religion of the constitution and Der Process. Otherwise you'd give me concrete topics or concrete things to talk about. There is less substance to what you say than my state report in 5th grade...

See? You care more about balance than principles. Which is why there is nothing concrete...

You cite no sources. You give no objective standards. You're a hostile bull5hitter that's here to waste time and has nothing to offer anyone except "trust the plan". You're offering Qanon trust without even a good story...

...You're a liar and making 5hit up... You're just putting words in my mouth and call me the uncouth one.

...You just argue and present no alternative just that I'm wrong...

...instead of writing walls of text and definitional mush- the walls of text are making up for the lack of simple clarity...

...didn't want to give your favorite founding father the Authoritarian finance-capitalism cheerleader Bank of the US Alexander Hamilton a blank check to destroy the rights of normal people...

More than you provide cupcake. All you do is criticize and offer nothing. You're like a dry prune art critic who never achieved any creation themself and is self-loathing enough that all you have is disdain and vinegar for anyone who does try. You're an elitist toff who has nothing to offer anyone, and managed to reach the point of pissing of KcBrown because of your complete haughty and dishonest manner- which to date I believe I've only seen MrRabbit achieve. But I'm sure you've got high quality wines in the basement, a 7+ figure home, and nothing I say or do will ever amount to anything noteworthy or convincing for you so there's literally no point to me talking to you except pointing out what a waste dialogue with you is...

You can't and won't talk plainly. That's just plain dishonest. You're refusing to play honestly and define real terms...

Complete insistence on YOUR redefinition of words...
I need go no further. Even that last... As I provided a link to Webster's regarding "extremism" and, as I noted, I'm using commonly used/understood terms that you want me to "define" but simultaneously not produce a wall of text. (Noting that you have provided nearly as much commentary in this thread as I have.) You provide an hodgepodge of links and historical incidents loosely (and sometimes superficially) related to what's being discussed, including long, obscure diatribes from sources "you trust" as 'proof' of your position and then become incensed when I fail to treat them as tomes from on High. Right on down the list.

(In some respects, it's reminiscent of "Read Heller" with attached links to pieces by people they agree with. It's not 'argument.' It's appeal to authority and despite being shown that the "authority" isn't saying what your trusted source says it does, you simply become more assertive and strident. It's also what you allude to my doing. As I've asked before... Project much?)

I provide quotes from a Founding Father, an U.S. President (who was a Republican, by the way), the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration, the dictionary, etc. and you claim I provide nothing and, instead, invent things, lie, etc.

You are correct in that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
There is no productive debate here.
Instead, what you are proffering is ever more strident assertions regarding your understanding of History, your opinion on how things need to be 'fixed,' adamant exortation of "your truth" as reality/fact and anyone who disagrees as uninformed, stupid, liar, etc. That's not "debate." It's not even debate tactics. That's agenda and blind zeal for that agenda, regardless of what is presented as counter or observed as 'flaw' or 'weakness' in the agenda. Such has included your earlier 'threat' to ratchet up the 'heat' if I don't back off or accept what you say as gospel or engage based on 'your rules'...

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
If you want to know more beyond caustic slurs against how informed my opinion is, I'm happy to lower the temperature and have a wonkish discussion. If not I'm happy to keep the thermostat where it is or crank it up if you like.
Attempting to 'play it off' later as more benign than it came across and/or was intended...

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
I enjoy conversations from frigid to nuclear reaction. I was making an offer I sometimes do when people express that the conversation seems to be "stuck" either too intellectual, too vicious, or too gossipy that I can always change the thermostat and how.
I remind you, the site rules don't allow 'flaming;' which happens to be the bulk of what you have now proffered in your last two posts. That's not debate, it's invective. Reliance on invective, as I noted earlier, is highly suggestive of a lack of effective argument. It attempts to make your opponent 'the bad guy' or 'questionable' without having to address substance. (I don't mind being 'the bad guy' if it is defined as being unpersuaded and still able to observe/document the flaws/weaknesses in your argument.)

Oh... That's what you claim I've been doing. As I asked previously... Project much? Just like when you quote this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
...Much like you posit with "use their tactics." You appear to be envious of their success and figure "if it worked for them..."

What I'm arguing is that if they made and are making it work for them, then we'd best get with the program and make it work for us...
...then ask...

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
What's the difference between these two positions?
It should be self-apparent. Making the System work for you does not, by definition, involve lying, misrepresentation, cloaking your true agenda, falsifying records, denying enumerated and other rights because we disagree with them, scare tactics, playing the race card, claiming 'victim' status, and all the other things you have accused (sometimes/often rightly) Democrats or the Left of doing as SOP throughout numerous threads. Yet, your position is that's precisely the modus operandi we should be operating under...

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser
We're ALREADY dealing with the bad parts of that, so f- it, go whole hog and play the game the way they are. This conservative handwringing is such BS because the parade of horribles is already here.
In fact, it's the very thing you are doing in your responses to me and... surprise... it ain't working on me. Oh, I'm sure it's working on some; but, many of those are already predisposed toward your argument rather than mine. What might that suggest in terms of taking your 'strategy' to a nationwide audience?

The reality is that the "parade of horribles," were it already here in the manner you seem to feel it is, things would be multiple degrees worse and there would be absolutely no hope of revival. While you seem to heartily believe that, and I never accused you of feeling otherwise, not everyone else does or is too stupid, distracted, uninformed, or ignorant to 'see it.' If you and KC's arguments were as unassailable in their persuasiveness and 'absolutely true' as you posit them to be, we'd already be in the midst of a Constitutional Convention and while there has been some movement in that direction, it's far from a 'done deal.' (That's another tactic of the Left, talking down to people as if they are 'stupid' and 'uninformed' for not readily agreeing with you.)

What you have been doing is reading without understanding and become so involved in your own 'correctness' and my 'wrongness,' that you have failed to perceive what I have been saying all along. When I summarize it, sans the documentation and elucidation...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
You want to play the game the way they do, then you'd better understand the game. By denying us victory, we effectively lose in the eyes of many. By denying them victory, we don't necessarily 'win' in the sense that we don't necessarily get what we want. In that sense, it's not about 'win/lose.' It's about maintaining an acceptable balance point 'indefinitely;' bearing in mind that, as I have said, that balance point is a range and not a fixed point. Don't like the point it currently rests upon, then the System allows for alteration of the point, if you can move it.

What it resists as inappropriate to the 'health' of the System is a point on an 'extreme.' Why? That is not 'balance' and such creates/ensures conflict rather than 'moderates.' Remember, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not and never have been about your 'freedoms' or even your 'rights.' They are about your 'liberties' set against the needs of society. That's what the Federal Government was put in place to do... "maintain an overall balance," not 'favor' one individual/group/philosophy over another on an indefinite basis.

What you see/point to as 'failure' is the inevitable 'ebb and flow' associated with maintaining balance. As I said, don't like the balance point, move it. But, the Constitution/Bill of Rights only allows it to be moved in certain ways and within a certain range so that it is neither easily moved nor moved to an destabilizing extreme. It's what we often refer to as the pendulum swing. If you don't like the direction of the swing, you don't eliminate the pendulum, you stop the momentum and start it in a different direction.
You thank me, but still declare that you disagree. As you suggest in your replies, we aren't simply 'speaking' to each other. Thus, information and reasoning, as opposed to invective and assertion are called for and, sometimes, that takes more than a bumper sticker sized post. I could have followed your lead and simply posted something like...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
You're wrong. You are a...
...left it at that and no 'education' would have occurred in terms of discerning both our relative positions and why we hold them. But, there would have been no "walls of text" on my part.

Of course, since my objective in these types of threads (and it's something I've repeatedly posted) isn't conversion to my way of thinking, but is, instead, presentation of facts and argument which promote thinking for oneself, leaving the ultimate conclusion for the reader(s) to come to for themselves, I'll stick with the varying lengths of my posts as I feel appropriate unless/until there is an administrative change where such is no longer possible due to length constraints and/or all members (as opposed to a self-appointed group who feel they know best) find 'no value' in my contributions. (Contrary to the belief of some and not to toot my own horn, but as a juxtaposition to your accusations, there are those who often do find my contributions worthwhile, honest, factual, and well written.)

Now that we appear to have said what we feel needs to be said and there appears to be no further, 'productive debate' to be had between us, how about if we leave it at that and let others contribute to the thread if they so desire?

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 06-09-2021 at 4:54 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-09-2021, 2:03 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,873
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
...
Trapped, before we go further, I need an answer to a critical question:

Is armed conflict between opposing sides, such as the Civil War, within the system or outside of it?

The answer to that question bears on pretty much everything else going forward, so it's crucial.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-09-2021, 6:34 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,641
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

i
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Trapped, before we go further, I need an answer to a critical question:

Is armed conflict between opposing sides, such as the Civil War, within the system or outside of it?

The answer to that question bears on pretty much everything else going forward, so it's crucial.
Unfortunately, though some would accuse me of 'walls of text,' obfuscation, et al., there isn't a 'simple' answer to your question; at least not for someone willing to 'think it through' as opposed to relying on knee-jerk emotionalism or bumper sticker rhetoric. Bear with me...

The Declaration of Independence references altering, abolishing, and throwing off Government. It does not, specifically, speak to "armed conflict" as a method for doing any of the above. However, at the end, it states...

Quote:
...that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Thus, while not explicitly stated, the Declaration could be argued to infer "armed conflict" as a potentiality; but, within the context of 'abolishing and throwing off' Government in that simply 'altering' it was not the reference point...

Quote:
...That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...
The Constitution provides (Article V) two ways to change/alter/amend the Constitution. Neither of those involves "armed conflict."

Of course, the 2nd Amendment is incorporated into the Constitution and it is well-established that part of the thought process behind its codification was as an enhancement to better resist tyrannical government. As Scalia noted in Heller...

Quote:
...There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.”... Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny...

...petitioners’ interpretation does not even achieve the narrower purpose that prompted codification of the right. If, as they believe, the Second Amendment right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as a member of an organized militia... it does not assure the existence of a “citizens’ militia” as a safeguard against tyranny... Thus, if petitioners are correct, the Second Amendment protects citizens’ right to use a gun in an organization from which Congress has plenary authority to exclude them. It guarantees a select militia of the sort the Stuart kings found useful, but not the people’s militia that was the concern of the founding generation...

...as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right...
While you and I have exchanged views on that last part previously, suffice to say here that it could be argued that "armed conflict" was an anticipated and intrinsic part of resistance to tyranny and 'tyranny' is, by definition, linked in many/most cases to the system of government one operates within. Thus, "armed conflict" would be roughly synonymous with resistance to tyranny based on the operating, legal definition of a militia and part of its role within our system of government.

There has been some debate from before the Civil War through today as to whether the Civil War represented an exercise in "Constitutional Interpretation". For example...

Quote:
...In this respect, one can see Lincoln's greatness not only as a practical leader, but also as a constitutional theorist, operating at a level a notch higher yet even than the most brilliant legal scholars of a century and a half later. Lincoln's logic is relentless and powerful, as well as practical; his judgment that the part must yield to the whole-an insight common to Lincoln's view of the Union, to his view of judicial authority, and to his view of constitutional survival and necessity as a meta-principle of constitutional interpretation-is deductive reasoning at its best. Specific provisions of the Constitution must be interpreted and applied in light of the imperative of preserving the Constitution as a whole, through preservation of the nation. The argument can misfire in its application-Presidents can be mistaken as to how it applies in particular situations; "the Supreme Court likewise can be mistaken as to what is a "compelling interest" justifying measures otherwise unconstitutional!" The argument is dangerous. Its applications will almost always be contestable. But can one really say that the logic of the argument is wrong?...

If the Civil War must be judged the most important event of constitutional interpretation in our nation's history, Lincoln must be judged the most important, influential constitutional interpreter and expositor our nation has ever known-beating out, by a fair distance, his next nearest rivals, Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, James Madison, William Brennan, and Earl Warren...
Even more recently... THE CONSTITUTIONAL ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR...

Quote:
...Conlin shows how the Framers’ construction of the United States’ not-quite-sacred text made the war foreordained from the foundations of the country...
Short version, Conlin argues that the 'balance changed,' making the Civil War inevitable. Thus, the question would be whether "armed conflict" was anticipated as, potentially, a necessary instrument for creating a change in the balance point or whether "armed conflict" was a predictable result of a change to the balance point. When coupled with the previous reference, it would also need be asked whether "armed conflict" was viewed a systemically allowable means for preservation of the existing balance.

Of course, which balance would also enter into the discussion. For Lincoln, it was the Union. For the Confederacy, it was the primacy of the States, something they would argue was intrinsic to the 'original intent' of the Founders. It's part of why many in the South do not refer to it as the "Civil War" in that such implies a rebellion against existing order. They argue that it was, in fact, the Federal Government which was attempting to unconstitutionally impose a 'new' order and they were attempting to preserve the existing one. That's why you'll hear a variety of euphemisms rather than "Civil War" and they are all dependent upon one's point of view and the context for that view.

Now... That's the "Reader's Digest" version of 'documentary' background.

In direct answer to your question - Is armed conflict between opposing sides, such as the Civil War, within the system or outside of it? - I don't believe there is an overriding, simplistic "yes" or "no" answer that could, legitimately, be proffered; despite what a Court might opine based on the case it is dealing with. While "it depends" might sound like tap dancing and dodging, "it depends on the context" is, in actuality, the most honest and refined answer.

I think it could be fairly said that "the System" anticipates the possibility of "armed conflict" and such is alluded to in the Declaration, the Constitution via the 2nd Amendment, and a contextually-dependent interpretation of "emergency powers" allows for such. Does that place it "within the system?" Maybe. Then again, maybe not.

Are you resisting a tyrannical System? Are you preserving the Union/Constitution/System? Are you simply 'altering' the System? Are you abolishing or throwing off the System? Is there a necessity for "armed conflict" to accomplish any of those or do the other means provided specifically by the System offer a more suitable/appropriate/effective means for accomplishing your goal; i.e., "armed conflict" is universally considered the 'last resort' or the method used when all other methods have been attempted and failed to work?

Thus, if phrased "such as the Civil War," the question would be how one views that era and in what context. If phrased as 'resistance to tyranny,' that's another context. What is the context for what is labeled "civil war?" Is it resistance to tyranny? Is it attempt to abolish and throw off existing government? Is it more an 'euphemism' such as the Left/the media reference January 6, using 'insurrection' as a means to portray lawlessness and anti-Systemic activities?

In short, context is crucial and it's not about "civil war" being "within the System." The context provides a basis for the necessary interpretation as to whether it is "Systemically" allowable or found to be 'outside' the System in that, as I expressed to lowimpactuser, the System allows for alteration, including the balance point. What it resists as inappropriate to the 'health' of the System is a balance point on an 'extreme.' Why? That is not 'balance' and such creates/ensures conflict rather than 'moderates.'

Does the alteration require "armed conflict" to accomplish? If so, would that be due to the extreme nature of the alteration? Doesn't the System resist such extremism due to the inevitable 'conflict' it creates?

If you've already pre-determined your intent and whether that intent justifies "whatever it takes" to accomplish, then the logical response would be: "What does it matter whether 'armed conflict' is within the System or not?" If you're willing to do whatever it takes, then what the System "allows/resists" would be irrelevant to you - right? Of course, that then opens the door to the System allowing for whatever it takes to resist - correct? Certainly, that was Lincoln's argument. As I replied, in part, to you earlier, Lincoln said...

Quote:
...I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery...
As already noted, clearly Lincoln's interpretation was that "armed conflict" was within the System; but, it must be borne in mind that his interpretation was contextualized by circumstance, not as an overarching 'permission slip' codified within the System itself for use on any and all occasions/circumstances. In that sense, it's tantamount to the System having the ability to defend itself, with that ability being dependent upon People to understand and use; which has been my argument all along. But, that brings us back to...

I don't believe there is an overriding, simplistic "yes" or "no" answer that could, legitimately, be proffered to answer your question. Context is crucial in that while "the System" anticipates the possibility of "armed conflict," the System also goes out of its way to preclude "armed conflict" and does not overtly and explicitly declare "armed conflict" to be an option. Instead, it alludes to it in the Declaration, the Constitution via the 2nd Amendment, and as an interpretation of "emergency powers" (which is a Constitutional grey area); but, only as an extreme measure to combat extreme circumstances.

Thus, we are brought back to how one defines "extreme" and "radical" vis a vis balance and health of the System/individual. Which brings us right back to where we started and if everything going forward depends on how such is interpreted, then, as I said previously, you clearly need MUCH more than what you are presenting. I don't need to 'prove' that. It's self-apparent. Not simply because of my 'resistance;' but, because you still don't have sufficient agreement to convene a Constitutional Convention or ANY assurance that such a Convention will be as 'controllable' as you posit.

You have to persuade a sufficient number of others that what you view as "extreme" is necessary to 'correct' the flaws YOU see in Heller, made by the Founders, and as irreconcilable using the means explicitly found within the System; not to mention being very specific in terms of the alternatives you propose and how they don't represent their own form of 'extremism' and 'tyranny' when set against what we already have. Put another way, using my interpretation of whether "armed conflict" is within the System as a foil or as a foundation for presenting your argument isn't and shouldn't be the point.

If my interpretation depends on context, as I just extensively outlined, and you've already decided that the context justifies "whatever it takes," then your case should already be persuasive enough to convince me that I should be interpreting the context consistent with your view. If your argument isn't sufficiently persuasive in-and-of itself and requires more to argue against or more to utilize as justification, then I would contend that it is still insufficient in and of itself. So... Say what you gotta say and we'll take a look.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-10-2021, 3:43 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,873
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Unfortunately, though some would accuse me of 'walls of text,' obfuscation, et al., there isn't a 'simple' answer to your question; at least not for someone willing to 'think it through' as opposed to relying on knee-jerk emotionalism or bumper sticker rhetoric. Bear with me...
Thanks, yeah, I guess I'm not surprised that there might be circumstances where it could be considered to be "working within the system". The 2nd Amendment specifically states a purpose of the "security of a free State", so it certainly seems valid to consider militia action for that stated purpose to be "within the system", at least if the "free State" side wins...

I hadn't actually considered massive armed conflict as something that could be considered "working within the system", at least at a conscious level. But it makes sense that it can be under some circumstances.

But this train of thought has also caused me to drop back a bit and think from a higher altitude.

And causes me to raise the question: under what conditions would you consider the system to be illegitimate?

Don't worry, I realize that the answer might be difficult and nuanced, so I certainly don't mind if your reply to that is long, so long as it's informative.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 06-10-2021 at 4:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-10-2021, 9:48 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,641
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
...And causes me to raise the question: under what conditions would you consider the system to be illegitimate?

Don't worry, I realize that the answer might be difficult and nuanced, so I certainly don't mind if your reply to that is long, so long as it's informative.
As stated, there is no "definitive" possible. It's akin to the SCOTUS 'standard' on pornography; i.e., it cannot be definitively defined, but you'll know when you see it. It goes beyond "nuanced" and is more a matter of perception than objective measure. Part of that is due to it resting on perceptions and individually subjective standards.

Example: "No taxation without representation" was a rallying cry. The phrase, in several forms, has been variously ascribed and attributed to individuals in the mid-late 1700's and has continued to be used over time...







The last is actually closer to reality from the beginning to now. While the slogan is/was popular, there is/was an argument to be made that the Colonists and we today actually had/do have representation. The actual objection is the amount of taxation and what the funds are used for (or, a bit more accurately, the direction of social policy they support).

"Without representation" is more indicative of "the one I didn't vote for won" and "I don't like/agree with..." Which sends us off into the weeds of "not my Governor/President" which is a statement that "I don't agree with" rather than discourse over the amount and what the funds are used for. Simplistically, we have always had and will always have some level/form of 'taxation' if we continue to have 'government' in that all government(s) require 'contribution' to do its job; even if that contribution is simply a token to demonstrate recognition/acceptance of the 'government' itself.

Many end up confused with the idea that "income tax didn't start until WWI." Not only isn't that strictly accurate, it ignores other forms of taxation citizens pay whether they realize it or not. In some respects, such is true with virtually every 'tax' (and/or 'fee') out there; from gas taxes to sporting goods taxes to garbage fees to National Park entry fees. It's just like the "first estate tax was enacted in 1797 in order to fund the U.S. Navy." Where the reactions occur is when personal perceptions become twigged.

Thus, if we recognize that taxes are inevitable because they are necessary, the issue becomes... to what degree/how used? As I said, that becomes a whole different kettle of fish in that it's as much (more) perception as objective measure. While there is a certain level of 'objectivity' involved, the methods for those objective measures are questioned/criticized and the 'need' they purport to 'objectify' is dependent upon subjective evaluations. Thus, accusations fly and many are often claimed to be based on "reason," criticizing the opposing 'side' of irrationality.

On the first day of a college level Logic course, the instructor will observe that there are two things which will not be discussed in the class: politics and religion. Religion is based on the answer to a simple question: Does God exist? The answer becomes your deductive premise and, by the rules of deductive logic, one cannot 'see/hold' anything which detracts from the premise. Politics operate along similar lines. You buy into a premise - guns are an inalienable right, taxation is evil, man-made global warming exists and will destroy the planet, all immigration is 'good' and it doesn't matter whether it's legal/illegal - and your arguments must then coincide with that premise.

It's the same thing I told you earlier. You have openly acknowledged that you have 'come around' to a philosophy of 'whatever it takes' to incorporate 'careful alterations' to the existing System; which, by default, means a 'new system.' With that choice of philosophy, you prejudice your premise (or reveal it as deductive); i.e., logically, you must adopt the thought that the system, as it exists, is failing and that the current generation is 'smarter' than (or at least as wise as) the Founders vis a vis not only their intent, but their ability to create something 'better,' beginning with what we have now.

As I have acknowledged, my own argument has a 'deductive premise' in that I still believe the System capable of defending itself. The 'weakness' of my premise, as I also acknowledged, is that it is dependent upon the People to accept the responsibility the Founders implicitly/explicitly placed on them. As I previously phrased it, the difference between our positions is the underlying premise... What you see as in need of 'correction' isn't a 'flaw' or 'mistake' of the Founders. It is, fundamentally, a facet of the People themselves. I suppose it could be argued that the 'flaw/mistake' of the Founders was a reliance on the People. But, they didn't see it that way and, as I have been arguing, abandonment of that reliance is abandonment of the very "foundational principles of the country" you claim to champion.

It goes back to you being an engineer, looking at the System, and wanting to design it more 'appropriately.' My response was that there is a difference between 'politics' and 'engineering.' Engineering is based, primarily, on 'dependable fact.' Politics is based on more transitory, amorphous, and alterable concerns. In that sense, engineering is based on INDUCTIVE logic and politics is based on DEDUCTIVE logic. Unfortunately, the 'rules' for each type of reasoning do not 'mix;' primarily due to how 'premises' are viewed in each type of reasoning. Simplistically, induction comes to a provisionally accepted premise (conclusion) and deduction begins with a premise which must be adhered to.

It's one of the conundrums of Science itself. Science purports to practice 'induction,' but begins with a 'deductive' premise. Such is alluded to in Kaplan's "paradox of conceptualization"...



Or, as Einstein put it...

Quote:
It would not be difficult to come to an agreement as to what we understand by science. Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the attempt at the posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualization. But when asking myself what religion is, I cannot think of the answer so easily. And even after finding an answer which may satisfy me at this particular moment, I still remain convinced that I can never under any circumstances bring together, even to a slight extent, all those who have given this question serious consideration...
Yet, in that very quote, he exemplifies the problem. It is 'easy' to come to an agreement of "Science" - IF - we simply accept the deductive premise that "Science" is based in observation of Nature and nothing outside of 'Nature' is permissible. It's the very reason Science cannot 'prove/disprove' the existence of God in that God is 'outside' of or created "Nature."

It's why the Bible begins... "In the beginning God created..." (Genesis 1:1) It's why, when Moses asked at the burning bush who he was supposed to say sent him, the reply was: "I AM THAT I AM." (Exodus 3:14) Simple, precise, clearly stated... deductive premises.

It's the very reason "Science" and "Religion" pull at each other and it can be seen throughout virtually ALL of the 'conflicts' between the two throughout History. It's an issue of 'control' over society/culture and how it operates via largely 'competing' deductive premises; not the objective, neutral arbiter of all things each purports to be.

It's what Jefferson was invoking in the Declaration with "which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them." It was to emphasize that the rights of which he spoke were NATURAL Rights, existing and separate from the 'authority' of man-made Government. It's why I told you in our earlier conversation that the Bill of Rights is a 'misleading' title or, perhaps more accurately, was an incomplete title in that what it speaks to isn't the "right" (freedom) itself, but the "liberty" to exercise that right in society.

By the definition of 'natural right,' it cannot speak to the right. It can only speak to the 'consent of the governed' insofar as how and to what degree one is 'allowed' to exercise that right within the context of the society the Constitution was created to provide structure for. That is what he meant by "to secure these rights" and "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends." You have the freedom (right), regardless of Government. When the Government becomes destructive to that freedom by restricting the liberty to exercise that freedom to the point of obviation, then the People also have the right to 'alter, abolish, throw off' that Government and form a 'new' one.

Which brings us back to the question I posed in my first post of this thread: Where does the line need to be drawn and where can it be drawn without threatening stability?

It is, in essence, what you ask with - "Under what conditions would you consider the system to be illegitimate?" - just from a slightly different direction and with a different intent. My reply is the same as I posed after I asked my version of the question...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
Let's hope we don't have to find out 'the hard way,' again.
Such alludes to what I said earlier. Where you and I differ is in how you view "getting it right." You want a certain 'rigidity' to the system that, so far as I can discern, is neither possible nor desirable. You seem to desire elimination of the "risks;" particularly as regard what you, personally, view as your ability to act (liberty) on what you perceive as your freedom.

You posit that the Founders didn't understand all this and failed to 'get it right.' I argue that they understood this precisely and developed what they felt (and what many argue) is the 'best' system possible. What you argue is the nature of that System, in its requirement for active vigilance and involvement by those most directly impacted (the People), is flawed due to disparate interests, concerns, and agendas. What the Founders and History have demonstrated is that, as Uncle Ben told Peter, "with great power comes great responsibility." The People were given, or more accurately, claimed "the Power." With that power comes the responsibility to utilize it appropriately and effectively.

You keep looking for a definable metric to use as a foil or a foundation for your argument. That is the engineer in you looking for an empirical standard upon which to begin. As I continue to advise, there is no such empirical standard; never has been, never will be. In a sense, you are up against the limitations of 'inductive reasoning' and theoretical construct.

For lack of a better analogy, you are being required to abandon the 'theoretical' and adopt an 'applied' approach. Simplistically, the former seeks to increase understanding whereas the latter focuses on actual change. What I have been trying to make you see is that 'understanding' alone is insufficient. To create the actual change, you must simultaneously understand what it is you are truly arguing and how what you are truly arguing is perceived, then get people to see, understand, and agree to it similarly. As noted, as of the moment, you have failed to do both on this thread and, as part of those calling for a Constitutional Convention, on a nationwide basis.

The point is found in the Star Trek: The Next Generation clip I provided. Data changed his premise and his opponent did not see it. By changing his premise, he changed the desired outcome or, more appropriately, the outcome he sought. By changing the outcome being sought, he changed the definitional parameters of "win/lose."

The outcome you seek is to "preserve and promote liberty." As you acknowledge, it is the same thing sought by the Founders. What you propose is a 'different System' for achieving that outcome; no matter how 'similar' the System you propose would be overall, the 'careful alterations' are also the 'crucial' elements and were/have been the most divisive, but allow for the 'range' to the 'balance point' I reference.

The reason for that 'range' is recognition of the near infinite 'range' of perceptions and individually subjective standards which are inevitable in a "nation" based on a diverse (less than today given the myriad 'metrics' being employed, but still 'diverse' then) rather than an homogeneous population. In fact, it was, is, and continues to be argued that since a "nation" is defined, in part, as sharing "common descent, history, culture, or language," the Constitution/Bill of Rights was created as the 'commonality' necessary for the emerging country to be considered, by definition, a "nation."

Put another way, the 'range' is a 'safety margin' built into the System. It was incorporated to provide a touchstone and allow for an increase in numbers and diversity. It is that very 'safety margin' you wish to tamper with by 'incorporating' a 'rigidity' you feel the Founders 'failed' to put in and that I argue they deliberately didn't incorporate in favor of increased flexibility as a means/measure of 'safety' and allowance for both 'growth' and 'change.'

Which returns us to the idea that you have to persuade others that what many will view as "extreme" is necessary to 'correct' the 'flaws' YOU perceive; i.e., that the 'safety valve(s)' is/are irreparably broken/unusable and the 'margin of safety' is, thus, insufficient. To do so, your case must be persuasive enough to convince myself (and others) that we should be interpreting things consistent with your view. If your argument isn't sufficiently persuasive in-and-of itself and requires more to argue against or more to utilize as justification, then I would contend that it is still lacking.

So, as before... Say what you gotta say and we'll take a look.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-10-2021, 11:28 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,873
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
As stated, there is no "definitive" possible. It's akin to the SCOTUS 'standard' on pornography; i.e., it cannot be definitively defined, but you'll know when you see it.
Okay, then maybe I can ask a different question: have there been any systems in the history of the world that you would consider to be illegitimate? If so, which ones (just a few examples would be sufficient), and why do you consider them to be illegitimate?

Note that I realize that the answer might well be subjective. That's fine. I'm after your opinion here.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-11-2021, 2:39 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,641
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
...I'm after your opinion here.
In direct response to your question, I've already suggested the answer in my previous posts. Look to the definition of "illegitimate" in Webster's...

Quote:
1a: not recognized as lawful offspring
b: born of parents not married to each other
2a: not sanctioned by law : ILLEGAL
b: not authorized by good usage
cof a taxon : published but not in accordance with the rules of the relevant international code
3: not rightly deduced or inferred : ILLOGICAL
4: departing from the regular : ERRATIC
Much about the System we have is explicitly stated. Much more about the System we have has been left to be interpreted, derived, altered, adhered to, et al. It's part of what is behind the reason we claim to be "a nation of laws." It's why the Founders went through a 'legal process' to create the nation via the Declaration, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and incorporated similar processes into them. The idea was to 'make it legitimate.'

However, from the English perspective, under English law/tradition (which we were subject to at the time), it could be rationally/validly interpreted that the United States was created in a lawless fashion, making it illegitimate from their perspective. Such is actually at the base of why many in England, to this day, still look down on we 'colonials.' It was also the reason we had to fight a 'War of Independence.' Was it 'legal' in that it was 'declared' via the Declaration of Independence? Certainly, we like to think so; claiming it to be just and legitimate. But, take a look at a 2011 piece posted by the BBC... Is the US Declaration of Independence illegal?

Quote:
...By 4 July, America's founding fathers approved a simple document penned by Jefferson that enumerated their grievances and announced themselves a sovereign nation.

Called the Declaration of Independence, it was a blow for freedom, a call to war, and the founding of a new empire.

It was also totally illegitimate and illegal.

At least, that was what lawyers from the UK argued during a debate at Philadelphia's Ben Franklin Hall...
As we've already explored, the Civil War is viewed, in many respects, from similar perspectives. Was it legal and, therefore, legitimate? Remember, what was determined "after-the-fact" isn't the benchmark. The benchmark is what was understood and/or interpreted from the laws at the time. Actually, in many respects, we're STILL debating the 'legitimacy' of it; i.e., note the OP of this thread and the dates on a couple of the references I've already provided you.

Thus, using a term such as "legitimate" or "illegitimate" is, once again, a matter of perspective and debate. Just as you claim to have never... actually considered massive armed conflict as something that could be considered "working within the system." Remember what I said earlier...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
It's what I've been attempting to get you to see all along. Your argument is, essentially, that you want to 'save the System' by 'changing the System.' It's an inherent contradiction, which is why you often seem to be contradicting yourself and have to adopt a certain set of arguments as 'factual,' despite their being either subjective or implausible or incorrect or some combination.
What you are attempting, on the one hand, is to utilize the System (an Article V Convention) to 'change the System.' Yet, you have entertained the possibility (at times appearing to have actually adopted the stance) that the System cannot be used to save itself. Put another way, you are attempting to use the System as a means to do something which is perceived as simultaneously inside and outside of the System. To that end, you have to find a way to portray the System, as it currently exists, as "illegitimate" while concurrently creating the perception of your remedy as the only "legitimate" answer. Unfortunately, it's proving difficult to reconcile the two for, as I noted, it's an inherent contradiction or, at best, appears to be.

Use of words such as "illegitimate" also 'signals' your personal mindset and agenda. Just like 'failed system' and "the founders failed to account," they are indicative of your premise(s), not mine and, as I have shown, the presumptions you are working from are not... entirely... accurate or objective. Neither are they universally accepted or even accepted to the degree necessary to advance your agenda.

The music is over and the time for 'dancing' is past KC.

You're not looking for my opinion. You're looking for a foil; i.e., a 'weakness' or something to contend against. Either that or you are seeking a foundation of 'agreement' upon which to proceed. Thus far, I've given you the honest responses and you're still looking because those responses haven't given you what you feel you need. The significance of that is, once again, self-apparent.

You need to find a way to apply your theoretical perceptions and contentions to the real world. My 'job' here isn't to provide that for you. My 'job' is to help you find it yourself or, failing that, to get you to see that you've got some heavy lifting still to do in the formulation of your 'careful alterations' and the rationale behind them before you keep trying to 'promote' them.

As previously stated, say what you gotta say and we'll take a look. If your argument is strong, based in fact, rational, valid AND truthful, it will stand and, perhaps, succeed on its own merit. If it's not... well... more work on your part is required and my opinion related to your various queries, whether those topics be directly or tangentially related, isn't going to be what is needed. Looking to the critique and refining your thoughts will be.

I hope that helps.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 06-11-2021 at 2:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-11-2021, 1:43 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,873
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
As previously stated, say what you gotta say and we'll take a look.
OK, I'll do that in my next message, hopefully tomorrow, when I'm operating on more sleep than I am right now.


Quote:
You're not looking for my opinion. You're looking for a foil; i.e., a 'weakness' or something to contend against. Either that or you are seeking a foundation of 'agreement' upon which to proceed.
The latter. The reason, of course, is that convincing someone is best done when you understand his values with respect to what you're trying to convince him of. But you've not, that I can tell, given anything indicating your values, at least in this thread. You've shown other people's values. There is no hint that I can find that your values align with (or against) those you cite.

The closest thing I can find to something that might indicate some of your personal values is this:

Quote:
Let's hope we don't have to find out 'the hard way,' again.
So, you'd prefer, it seems, to avoid a bloody civil war. But there's nothing to indicate the lengths to which you'd be willing to go to avoid it, or what burdens you would be willing to bear to avoid it, or what you're willing to sacrifice to avoid it, nor is there anything to indicate what you'd consider to be acceptable reason to fight one, much less initiate one. You've given other people's perspectives on some of that, but not yours.


So I will have to proceed without any meaningful idea of where you stand with respect to the questions that surround any of what I will be presenting.

In the next message in which I outline what I have in mind and why, I'll define my terms as best as I can, give my reasoning as best I can, etc. If it convinces, then that's excellent. If it fails, that's fine, but it would then at least be helpful to know why. If you find something that could use improvement, then I'll happily think about how to go about that.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 06-11-2021 at 2:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-11-2021, 5:40 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,641
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
OK, I'll do that in my next message, hopefully tomorrow, when I'm operating on more sleep than I am right now.

The latter. The reason, of course, is that convincing someone is best done when you understand his values with respect to what you're trying to convince him of. But you've not, that I can tell, given anything indicating your values, at least in this thread. You've shown other people's values. There is no hint that I can find that your values align with (or against) those you cite.

The closest thing I can find to something that might indicate some of your personal values is this:

So, you'd prefer, it seems, to avoid a bloody civil war. But there's nothing to indicate the lengths to which you'd be willing to go to avoid it, or what burdens you would be willing to bear to avoid it, or what you're willing to sacrifice to avoid it, nor is there anything to indicate what you'd consider to be acceptable reason to fight one, much less initiate one. You've given other people's perspectives on some of that, but not yours.

So I will have to proceed without any meaningful idea of where you stand with respect to the questions that surround any of what I will be presenting.

In the next message in which I outline what I have in mind and why, I'll define my terms as best as I can, give my reasoning as best I can, etc. If it convinces, then that's excellent. If it fails, that's fine, but it would then at least be helpful to know why. If you find something that could use improvement, then I'll happily think about how to go about that.
Actually, I've provided far more than you think, have been able to discern, or are willing to acknowledge. I've ALSO provided insight into SOME of what you are looking at overall. But, again, that's not the point.

What you are looking to do is, essentially, "sell" something to myself and others. You want us to join you in your quest to "fix" what you see as a less than optimal system. To that end, you are attempting to use rhetorical techniques typically used by salesmen to establish a 'relationship' from which you can then...

What I have, repeatedly, said is that such is 'style,' not substance. What I and many others need to be able to evaluate is the substance. Think of it this way... "There was this one traveling salesman..."



I look forward to seeing what you have to propose.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-11-2021, 6:36 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,873
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Actually, I've provided far more than you think, have been able to discern, or are willing to acknowledge.
That may be. But reading between the lines is something I'm terrible at. Links to messages in which you've been explicit about describing what you (rather than someone else) value would be helpful. All I can say is that I've not found any such thing in this thread, at least that I'm capable of recognizing, save for the one quote I mentioned.


Quote:
I've ALSO provided insight into SOME of what you are looking at overall. But, again, that's not the point.

What you are looking to do is, essentially, "sell" something to myself and others. You want us to join you in your quest to "fix" what you see as a less than optimal system. To that end, you are attempting to use rhetorical techniques typically used by salesmen to establish a 'relationship' from which you can then...
The idea isn't to sell you on something that is false. It is to convince you that what I have in mind is worthwhile, while not being false to either that, myself, or you. But I can't do that if what you value differs sufficiently from the basis of what I have in mind that there would be no real agreement possible.

Suppose, for instance, that you valued stability above all else. Under those conditions, if a logical and persuasive argument could be made that the current state of affairs was tyrannical, that wouldn't matter to you if addressing it required loss of stability, even if only temporarily. What the person on the other end of the conversation values matters when it comes to making a persuasive argument, as well as whether or not one should bother to try at all.


Quote:
What I have, repeatedly, said is that such is 'style,' not substance. What I and many others need to be able to evaluate is the substance. Think of it this way... "There was this one traveling salesman..."
Substance that is delivered in a manner that conflicts with or calls into question the beliefs of the other person will fail to convince. It doesn't matter how good the substance is if the presentation of it causes the other person to walk away. And clearly, that evaluation of the presentation is subjective, and dependent upon the beliefs and values of the person in question. Which is precisely why the beliefs of the person you're trying to convince matter.


What I'm forced to do here is deliver my argument in a manner that presupposes that you have similar values to my own. In a way, it's presupposing that the argument is convincing. But I'm telling you right now, that is generally what you should not do if you're actually trying to build consensus, because consensus requires that one get the agreement of people of many different beliefs.

Do you really think the founders simply presented their arguments without understanding their audience, when attempting to convince the population to join their cause?
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-11-2021, 9:10 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,641
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Do you really think the founders simply presented their arguments without understanding their audience, when attempting to convince the population to join their cause?
You're getting closer.

No. I think they understood the audience they were appealing to for support. I also think they understood the audience they knew would not be supportive. Further, I know they were speaking to both and all those in between. In doing so, they provided fodder for the supporters, justification to the non-supporters, and something to consider for the in between's.

It's the very situation we currently find ourselves in.

That's why there were numerous proposals put forward, debate/discussion was had, and a consensus was formed despite disparate interests, priorities, agendas, and values. In fact, that was the whole point and what I alluded to earlier...

Quote:
...The 'best' that can be created is a system which allows those People to 'control' themselves; i.e., exercise self-government. Yet, such a system involves a certain 'flexibility' and 'adaptability;' something you propose 'removing' with your 'careful alterations.'...

...It's why the Bill of Rights was created, to ensure that some things remained "at center" and not pushed to a 'perceived' extreme or, if that perception were to take hold, that those rights could not be obviated or infringed due to that perception "of the moment." In fact, that was the whole point of the Constitution, to lay out a 'center' point and give us the ability to maintain it within acceptable parameters...

The reason for that 'range' is recognition of the near infinite 'range' of perceptions and individually subjective standards which are inevitable in a "nation" based on a diverse (less than today given the myriad 'metrics' being employed, but still 'diverse' then) rather than an homogeneous population. In fact, it was, is, and continues to be argued that since a "nation" is defined, in part, as sharing "common descent, history, culture, or language," the Constitution/Bill of Rights was created as the 'commonality' necessary for the emerging country to be considered, by definition, a "nation."...
Once again, this is where you have, to this point, been failing or, perhaps more accurately, where your premises force you into a 'negative' approach. You insist that the System has failed, that the Founders failed, that the System requires 'fixing' to work 'correctly,' that I have failed to provide you with 'my values' (when, in fact, I have and there's not much 'reading between the lines' required), that I need to provide you with links to where I have rather than you having recognized them all along (in this and previous threads), et al.

It's kinda like Walmart and the self-check out lines. Walmart is attempting to cut costs. Blaming the workers for not 'showing up,' they install a system which prompts the customer to 'do the work.' When that didn't entirely achieve the goal, they also cut down on the number of available checkers to further promote use of the self-checkout due to increasingly long lines. In the end, as the theory goes, it is work they no longer have to pay for, but where the cost of paying for that work continues to be incorporated into the pricing of the products on the shelves, prices the customers continue to pay while also doing the work. A win-win for Walmart.

Do they represent it that way? Absolutely not. But, in essence and in fact, that's the 'plan.' Were they to "sell" it that way, however, such would not play well in Peoria (or the rest of their customer base). Are there those who 'buy' the Walmart narrative? Yep. Are there those who do not and see it for what it is? Yep. Are there those who are in between and largely don't bother, continuing to shop or not shop at Walmart for their own reasons? Yep.

How does Walmart increase their base of support? By pointing to other retailers who have pursued a similar strategy, with all of them promoting a similar narrative; i.e., self-checkout eliminates the wait and adds options. Put another way, they're doing it FOR YOU and for YOUR benefit. Aren't those valuable to you? Isn't that consistent with your values/needs? How could you argue with that?

It's not and never has been about declaring your proposal true or false. It's about the premises you hold and whether a sufficient number agree with them. It's about...
  • Whether your proposed 'careful alterations' are consistent with the purpose you declare.
  • Whether your proposed 'careful alterations' will achieve the purpose you declare.
  • Whether your proposed 'careful alterations' are a better path/means than the System given to us by the Founders to the purpose you claim you share with them.
  • Whether your proposed 'careful alterations' are open to input/alteration/malleable understanding from the People or if they must be imposed upon them with little-to-no recourse.
  • Whether the means by which you intend creating your proposed 'careful alterations' is viable and controllable to the degree that other 'alterations' will not also occur.
In short, it's about A LOT of things. Right now, you are trying to 'build a choir' you can preach to and that will spread 'your Word.' To build that choir, you preach how evil, damned, and perverted the "World" is (and has been all along). The problem is that most already KNOW that and are aware the "World" is not a 'perfect place.' Further, most realize that there has never been and will never be a 'perfect' solution short of the Second Coming and there are those who do not see even that as a 'perfect' solution.

Thus, you realize you must promote your solution as 'better,' not perfect; i.e., 'worthwhile' compared to what we now have. To do that, you have to convince the audience that the chaos and potential 'tyranny' created will only be 'temporary' and worth it in the end. To do that, you have to inculcate the notion of 'control' over how events and the end result will emerge. To do that, you have to convince them that the 'control' which must be exerted isn't contrary to the "maximization of freedom & liberty" you purport to be your goal.

In a very real sense and in ways which matter, such is precisely the opposite of the Founders' approach. I will grant that may not be, entirely, how you envision it. But, as you acknowledge, it's not JUST your 'vision' which matters. That was what the Founders acknowledged and the System they put in place retained a certain flexibility which allowed for a diversity of visions while requiring a consensus as to where 'center' was approximately located, with an acknowledgement that failure to seek that 'center' and maintain meant the System would not work...

Quote:
...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other...
In exchange, what you have put forth, at least up to this point, are 'careful alterations' which would replace some/most of the flexibility deliberately incorporated by the Founders with an overt inflexibility as 'more desirable' to achieving the declared purpose. I've already observed several issues surrounding that, not the least of which being that the Constitution, in whatever form, cannot speak to the freedoms (rights) you wish to maximize so long as you continue to view them as "natural" rather than "legal."

What a Constitution can only address is the "consensus of the governed" insofar as the exercise of those freedoms (rights) within society; i.e., the liberty to act upon your rights. As such, there has ALWAYS been and will ALWAYS be a level on constraint/limitation on your liberties and we accept such limitations in exchange for access to society. Thus, "freedom AND liberty" will never be 'maximized' for a given individual. It will be 'maximized' within the accepted limits of the consensus of society.

That's why we have a Bill of Rights. It declares that Government, as it represents the consensus, cannot entirely eliminate one's liberty to act upon their freedoms. As Scalia went to great lengths to demonstrate in Heller, there were limitations, but very specific ones which were not broad in scope. But, that is our battle with Living Constitutionalists. They want to ignore the intent of the original limitations and impose what they see as 'necessary' in the 'now.' Put another way, they want to treat your liberties as 'legal rights' without limitations on Government power/authority. Yet, that ignores the openly stated purpose of the Bill of Rights being limitations on the power/authority of Government.

Which brings us back to your 'careful alterations' and the imposition of a 'rigidity' (Government authority) so as to 'maximize' freedom and liberty. This is why I have reacted to your "whatever it takes" philosophy. You propose incorporating a rigidity to how Government works and, within the context of our discussions thus far, that rigidity would be directly associated with how Government functions vis a vis our liberties. By definition, that is a reliance upon Government authority, even if intended to be used to restrain the use of Government as a power to encroach upon our liberties. Coupled with "whatever it takes," it can and does leave people askance; particularly when you claim...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
...a logical and persuasive argument could be made that the current state of affairs was tyrannical, that wouldn't matter to you if addressing it required loss of stability, even if only temporarily...
Such can be and likely is an acknowledgement that, as I termed it, a certain level of 'chaos and tyranny' will be required. Again, you may bristle at one or both of those descriptors, but they are appropriate. As I have been attempting to make you see, regardless of the purity of intent, what you are promoting is...

An 'enhancement' of Government authority, using a 'whatever it takes' approach, where some level of chaos and tyranny will be required, where the end result will, to whatever degree, remove some of the "power" from the People at large in exchange for maximizing something that the Government, by definition cannot address, as well as maximizing what it can address by defining what it can address, not so much built based on consensus, but on your vision of 'acceptable' (a vision you hope to persuade a 'sufficient' number of others to share).

As I said, I'm looking forward to seeing how you have refined what you have proposed in the past toward that end. One does not achieve consensus simply by appealing to a wide diversity of beliefs - IF - the goal is to achieve something specifically held by an individual as 'better' but which is contrary or seemingly contrary to the beliefs that individual is espousing. Remember what consensus is...

Quote:
Consensus means coming to an agreement. Creating consensus in a team setting means finding a proposal acceptable enough that all team members can support it, with no member opposing it. Consensus includes:
  • pooling opinions;
  • listening effectively;
  • discussing ideas and differences;
  • not getting all you want; and
  • coming to an agreement that everyone "can live with."
Consensus is not:
  • a unanimous vote;
  • majority or minority rule;
  • one person rule; or
  • bargaining.
The description of what consensus is sounds remarkably like what the Founders did. The description of what consensus isn't seems to bear a certain resemblance to what you are proposing. As I said, I'm waiting to see how you deal with that.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 06-11-2021 at 9:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:27 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical