I think that hell has officially froze over.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**chaplaingrabthar**

According to the glossary, DHS is also a Dark Heresy. I'm wondering about those homeland guys...

**Polonius**

I don't know if you misread my post, or are simply trying to bait me, but I shall assume the former. I was speaking only of the issue at hand: the size and reach of the federal government, in my assertion that aruging solely for one pole is naive. There are, or were, times of moral absolutes. Even MLK wasn't arguing for a polar opposite of the current system but a time of simple equality. Equilibrium sounds a bit like the middle, doesn't it? Keep in mind he was operating at time when there were black nationalists who saw violence as one, or possibly the only, way to gain any political say.

In terms of federal politics, neither the right nor the left have any moral absolute that seems compelling to me. It's all about compromise and finding the best way to draw a line in a large gray area.

People that argue from the middle are often remembered as statesmen. Moderates aren't remembered simply because they operate in times of realistic calm, when there are no major concerns. The ones arguing for the middle are the ones that avoid the major problems before the radicals and the reactionaries can get to them.

As for the 10th amendment, I'm not a constitutional scholar but I did take a class in Con Law. The 10th amendment is seen as explicitly stating what a close reading of the text of Article 1 says, which is that Congress (and by extension the entire federal government) is restricted only to those powers it is granted, either explicitly or implicitly. It does not have the power to legislate "for the general welfare" which state's enjoy.

Congress is given two huge ways to work around that. The first is the spending cluase, which says that Congress can spend money how ever it wishes, and by doing so can influence state laws through simple bribery. The drinking age is the best example of that in modern times.

The second work around is the Necessary and Proper clause. Essentially, Congress can enact laws that are necessary to carry out it's enumerated powers. The most common use is in the commerce clause, which states that Congress can regulate all interstate commerce. To do so, Congress finds it necessary to establish a federal bank. Congress can't start banks in the constitution, but since it's necessary and proper to the regulation of interstate commerce, it's allowed.

The commerce clause has by now been bent to almost ludicrous extents, but the Supreme Court only steps in when the relations are extremely tangential.

What the 10th amendment still stands for is the idea that the basic jobs of the state are still conducted state wide. Marriage, education, healthcare, criminal codes, morals, and even Incorporation of business are all still entirely state matters.

The problem with the 10th amendment is that in saying everything, it says nothing. Where do you draw the line between a Necessary and Proper usage of the Commerce clause and a power retained by the states? The only way would be through a very active judiciary, and the courts generally abstain from political questions, and the expansion of the Federal Government is not illegal or unconstitutional, it's simply a political consequence.

As for redundant sections of the constitution, why is there a separate freedom of the press? What rights do the press have that aren't covered by the right to speech? The courts have seldom found any actual rights inherent in the press.

Reading too much into the 10th amendment is the Right's version of the left's obsession with a living constitution stemming from the 14th. Both are simply untenable from the viewpoint of rigorous textual interpretation.

**Mango**

Polonius,
I do not beleive I misread your post nor am I trying to bait you. I was merely pointing out that my earlier statements were not naive, as you seemed to imply. far from it, they are a more realistic and practical viewpoint.

Moderates are not remembered as statesmen. They are not remembered. You failed to name any. Which is my point. Arguing from the middle gets you nowhere. people argue from one extreme or another, and through compromise, end up in the middle. Which means no one is happy.

As for your statements regarding the constitution. That is basically what I am trying to point out. The political parties in control of the US, both democrat and republican, are part of the problem. They have taken liberties and twisted so far out of shape the Necessary and Proper clause, and taken so much leeway with the "regulate interstate" commerce clause, that the government has become a monstrosity that in no way resembles what was intended. Which was a LIMITED government.

The problem with the 10th amendment is not that it says nothing. It is very specific in what it says. Using the logic given in law classes, which you have repeated, and the logic of the lawmakers and lawyers that came up with the interpretation of the "Necassary and Proper" clause is that it would mean essentially, that there are NO limits to the laws that congress can pass. And that my friend is exactly what the people who wrote the constitution did not intend. They specifically wanted to limit what power the government had. Unfortunately, politicians being politicians, both parties do agree on that view of the Necassary and Proper" clause, because any other view would limit their power.

The gentleman who wrote our constitution could not agree on many things. One thing they ALL agreed on was that government needed to be limited. They also knew that a government could not be to weak, as evidenced by the failure of the Articles of Confederation.

**sebster**

Mango wrote:Sebster,
Did I say that every vote is on personal gain? No I did not. I said on average people will vote in their own self-interest. Is economic gain an interest to a person? Yes.

Obviously self-interest is an issue. Point is your grand theory assumed only self-interest and nothing else decided votes. That's obviously wrong and a big whole in your grand theory of people voting in more laws to help themselves and hinder the rich.

Voting power does indeed have an impact on legislation. If a senator or congressman passes legislation that is against what his or her constituents want, that point will most assuredly be brought up next time they run for office. A prime example is Arlen Specter. He will now face a primary battle for nomination to the US senate in 2010, based purely on his support for the stimulus bill. He went against the wishes of his constituets, and will likely pay a price for it in 2010. That is indeed an impact on legislation. If voted out of office, a politician can no longer legislate.

**sebster**

Mango wrote:That is like saying a person being mugged does not own the property being taken from them, the mugger owns it. The person being mugged just "owns" it from everyone but the person doing the mugging. A person owns property. A government has the ability to take it from them because the government has the power to.

But you can only claim ownership of the property in the first place because of the laws created and enforced by... you guessed... government.

**sebster**

Mango wrote:Respectfully, I do not believe it is naive. I believe it is the exact opposite. A priime example of a person believing one system was better than another, and struggled long and hard to change the system was Martin Luther King jr. The system of institutioalized racism was wrong in his view. the opposite view is what the southern democrats wanted. They were the ones that enacted the Jim Crow laws. He did not see civil rights as a grey area. He saw it as wrong and took a stand.

History is repleat with great men and women who argued from one pole or another an achieved great things. People arguing from the middle have achieved little, as a matter of fact, I can think of none. If you can think of examples, I am willing to listen. So again, which is view is naive?

That's silly. People advancing centrist views aren't turned into national heroes because there's no heroic struggle to be found in progress advanced through consensus. There are no mobs marching down the streets chanting 'What do we want!?' 'Moderated advancement followed after lengthy productive debate!' When do we want it!?' 'In due course!'

But to argue that no such progress occurs is crazy talk. Almost all progress has been the result of minor achievements, sensible reforms, clever innovations, adding up over centuries. Situations that demand someone like MLK are fortunately pretty rare.

**Mango**

Sebster,
1. Other than self interst what do people vote on?
2. Where do you come up with your 70% support for government run healthcare in the US? It has never been at that level.
3. Loss of congress in 1994 had many factors, Clinton's overreach on healthcare was one major one. That and welfare reform.
4. Those costing studies you mentioned, funny that, the number is actually closer tp $5000, and the bulk of that is spent on healthcare, pensions, and benefits for people who no olonger work for the company. Hmmmmm imagine that. Why did they get that amount? Unions. Unions are heavily tilted socialist.
5. 'Not quite no." Great and logical argument that.
6. Again you are wrong. A government is not required to guarantee property ownership. Force is. Before government, there was property. Otherwise why did primitive man bury items with the dead?
7. "Almost all progress has been the result of minor achievments, sensible reforms, clever innovations, adding up over centuries." again you make an unsupported argument. Which happens to be false. Examples.

hitler's rise=> sudden
hitler's fall => sudden

Christianity as the dominant religion of the m,iddle east and north africa=>slow and incremental
The rise and spread of Islam => sudden

Rise of the roman republic=>slow and incremental
Fall of Roman republic =>sudden

Rise and maintance of Feudalism=> Slow and incremental
Collapse of French monarchy=>sudden

Dominance of the catholic Church in Europe=> slow and incremental
Rise of protestantism=>sudden
American Revolution=>Sudden

Rise and maintanence of Czarist russia => slow and incremental
Bolshevik Revolution => sudden

Jim Crow Laws and segregation=>suddenly passed => no change for a long time
MLK jr, civil rights movement=>sudden

Lets hear some examples of slow and incremental progress.

If you plan on making an argument, support it.

**sebster**

Mango wrote:Sebster,
1. Other than self interst what do people vote on?

Ah, now you get to the idea of self-interest vs selfishness. Selfishness is personal gain, voting for something because it would benefit the individual personally regardless of the effect on anyone else. Self-interest is simply what you believe to be the best course of action (for instance I might give money to Amnesty International while you might give money to the Red Cross - neither is more moral or less selfish than the other, just reflecting our own personal priorities).

The issue comes when you started jumping from self-interested voting to assuming people would just vote for their own pocketbooks until the whole society fell down in some Randian fantasy.

2. Where do you come up with your 70% support for government run healthcare in the US? It has never been at that level.

The Harris poll in Oct 2005 put the number between 60 and 75%.
Consumer Watchdog in Feb 2009 put the support at 64%.

3. Loss of congress in 1994 had many factors, Clinton's overreach on healthcare was one major one. That and welfare reform.

And the traditional move in mid-terms away from the party of the president.

But it is a really weird piece of historical non-context to look at the 1994 mid-term elections and see the move towards Republicans and assume it must be because of Clinton's medicare reform. To do so ignores the fact that Clinton won while promising medicare reform, and the 1994 election was held in the wake of the defeat of the Clinton plan.

4. Those costing studies you mentioned, funny that, the number is actually closer tp $5000, and the bulk of that is spent on healthcare, pensions, and benefits for people who no olonger work for the company. Hmmmmm imagine that. Why did they get that amount? Unions. Unions are heavily tilted socialist.

Yeah, it can be as high as $5,000 depending on the study. Now try and follow the point... once corporations realised how much the current scheme was costing them the issue suddenly started getting talked about again in political dialogue. Despite being an issue with broad support in the population going back .

Trying to segue into a rant about them durn unions is disappointing. Not because I'm a fan of unions, I'm not, but because it seemed like the entire reason for you to include that is to try and point score for the right wing over the left wing. I hope you're better than that but now I'm not so sure.

5. 'Not quite no." Great and logical argument that.

Argument to what? I said your initial argument was simplistic and naive, you came back with 'nuh-uh, you are!'. I said that wasn't the case.

6. Again you are wrong. A government is not required to guarantee property ownership. Force is. Before government, there was property. Otherwise why did primitive man bury items with the dead?

Man seems to have had a strong idea of personal property. My watch, your hat. Anything bigger and ownership is a lot less clear... housing and land frequently defaulted to communal ownership, let alone taking a claim of one fourteenth in a factory in a town you've never visited

You might also want to explain why Ugh the Mighty wasn't buried with his patents and copyrights.

7. "Almost all progress has been the result of minor achievments, sensible reforms, clever innovations, adding up over centuries." again you make an unsupported argument. Which happens to be false. Examples.

What on God's Earth are prattling about here? You've made a list of famous historical events... to what end? Are you trying to argue against the idea that most progress is small and incidental, undertaken . Why? Some kind of great men of history thing... are you that kind of libertarian? Or are you just saying nuh-uh to anything I post, in the hope that something might stick and you can declare a victory - perhaps instead you might want to go back to your original argument and think what possible relevance this line of argument has to do with any of it.

Meanwhile, let's look at the history and evolution of the car. Cugnot developed the model for a steam powered tractor in 1770, but it was very impractical. Murdoch developed a more practical model in 1784. Trevithick actually put one on the road in 1801. Meanwhile, Kubilin in Russia built a different model, which included seperate design elements still seen in modern cars. Countless others experimented and contributed to the field of knowledge. Many different types of fuel were experimented with, until in 1870 Marcus built one that used gasoline. In 1885 Benz built the first internal combustion engine. Then Daimler built the first car designed from the ground up as a car, not as a horse cart with an engine. Then Benz in Germany built the first production car in 1888. From there you've got countless more start up companies, employing thousands of engineers to keep evolving the design of the car, until you end up with my Mazda 6.

You want another one. I was thinking about doing Australian political history instead, the evolution from colony to independent memeber of the commonwealth. I could if you insist, or you could go back and read what you've argued here, read what you started with... think for a bit and then ask yourself 'what on Earth has my silly claim here got to do with anything in the substance of my actual claim?'

**namegoeshere**

Mango wrote:
namegoeshere wrote:I think people are essentially good. Or at least 70% good 30% jerk. Just in response to all the absolutist statements being made.

In Western countries typically lefty lefty gov intervention has helped economies. Lack of it leads to greater peaks and troughs. Though perhaps to some degree that isn't the worst thing.

If by helping the economy with double digit unemployment and 0-4% annual growth, and crippling tax burdens on those who have jobs supporting the ones that are among the double digit unemployed, as seen in most EU nations, then yes, lefty lefty governments do indeed help the economy.

Except Europe as a whole is richer than America, has less debt, shorter working weeks, and the unemployed are far more comfortable. America is richer in the sense of having much greater purchasing power for individuals - the tax burden is not crippling.

**reds8n**

Mango wrote:
7. "Almost all progress has been the result of minor achievements, sensible reforms, clever innovations, adding up over centuries." again you make an unsupported argument. Which happens to be false.

Because the advances we make in science are all just sudden developments, no one at all spends years and years researching stuff. That human genome project, they actually did all the work in about 1 afternoon, and just dragged it out to squeeze as much money out of it as they could. Modern computers ? Actually invented in 1817, it's just the spiteful govt. holding back all the real advancements just to stick it to the people !

Modern democracy and the legal systems we have ? All knocked together in one afternoon on a napkin in a Tacobell.

**Mango**

sebster wrote:
Mango wrote:Sebster,
1. Other than self interst what do people vote on?

Ah, now you get to the idea of self-interest vs selfishness. Selfishness is personal gain, voting for something because it would benefit the individual personally regardless of the effect on anyone else. Self-interest is simply what you believe to be the best course of action (for instance I might give money to Amnesty International while you might give money to the Red Cross - neither is more moral or less selfish than the other, just reflecting our own personal priorities).

The issue comes when you started jumping from self-interested voting to assuming people would just vote for their own pocketbooks until the whole society fell down in some Randian fantasy.

Again I never said the vote only for personal gain. I said they vote for self interest. I did not say they voted based on selfishness. You are stating that I made an argument that I never made. I guess when all else fails make things up.

2. Where do you come up with your 70% support for government run healthcare in the US? It has never been at that level.

When asked if everybody should have health care the poll answer was 75%
When asked if the government should run it and pay for through higher taxes, the number dropped back to around 50%
It is all in how you ask the question.

The Harris poll in Oct 2005 put the number between 60 and 75%.
Consumer Watchdog in Feb 2009 put the support at 64%.

From the gallup poll taken in 2005
"A key to understanding the public's mandate on healthcare is to comprehend that Americans want government intervention that goes just so far. Americans like federal government's involvement in many ways, but balk at the idea of a national healthcare system or plan. A second key is the understanding that almost any plan that forces businesses to provide better healthcare coverage meets with the approval of Americans. A third key is the understanding that Americans' sense of urgency about healthcare depends on the political environment. Worry about healthcare is like potential energy, waiting to be converted to kinetic energy. At the point in which the Clinton administration was proposing a national healthcare fix in 1993 and 1994, the percentage of Americans saying healthcare was the nation's top problem zoomed up, only to fall back with a year. The fact that support for a national healthcare system jumped in 2005 is interesting; future studies will be needed to see if this is a continuing trend."

3. Loss of congress in 1994 had many factors, Clinton's overreach on healthcare was one major one. That and welfare reform.

And the traditional move in mid-terms away from the party of the president.

But it is a really weird piece of historical non-context to look at the 1994 mid-term elections and see the move towards Republicans and assume it must be because of Clinton's medicare reform. To do so ignores the fact that Clinton won while promising medicare reform, and the 1994 election was held in the wake of the defeat of the Clinton plan.

Traditionally they lose some seats, but don't a majority if they have one. The US did not want the country heading toward Socialism, which is where the Clinton was taking us.

4. Those costing studies you mentioned, funny that, the number is actually closer tp $5000, and the bulk of that is spent on healthcare, pensions, and benefits for people who no olonger work for the company. Hmmmmm imagine that. Why did they get that amount? Unions. Unions are heavily tilted socialist.

Yeah, it can be as high as $5,000 depending on the study. Now try and follow the point... once corporations realised how much the current scheme was costing them the issue suddenly started getting talked about again in political dialogue. Despite being an issue with broad support in the population going back .

Trying to segue into a rant about them durn unions is disappointing. Not because I'm a fan of unions, I'm not, but because it seemed like the entire reason for you to include that is to try and point score for the right wing over the left wing. I hope you're better than that but now I'm not so sure.

I am not trying to segue into anything, merely pointing out a flaw in your argument. That of the corporations that wanted healthcare, it was the ones that were heavily unionized. The Unions were driving the corporations to bankruptcy. They were desperate to get out of that. Union organized companies make up a small percentage of US companies, and that number is steadily declining. Unions make the companies uncompetitive, not healthcare.

5. 'Not quite no." Great and logical argument that.

Argument to what? I said your initial argument was simplistic and naive, you came back with 'nuh-uh, you are!'. I said that wasn't the case.

No I gave reasons, you gave nothing. Try again

6. Again you are wrong. A government is not required to guarantee property ownership. Force is. Before government, there was property. Otherwise why did primitive man bury items with the dead?

Man seems to have had a strong idea of personal property. My watch, your hat. Anything bigger and ownership is a lot less clear... housing and land frequently defaulted to communal ownership, let alone taking a claim of one fourteenth in a factory in a town you've never visited

You might also want to explain why Ugh the Mighty wasn't buried with his patents and copyrights.

Ah, so you agree, property came before government.

7. "Almost all progress has been the result of minor achievments, sensible reforms, clever innovations, adding up over centuries." again you make an unsupported argument. Which happens to be false. Examples.

What on God's Earth are prattling about here? You've made a list of famous historical events... to what end? Are you trying to argue against the idea that most progress is small and incidental, undertaken . Why? Some kind of great men of history thing... are you that kind of libertarian? Or are you just saying nuh-uh to anything I post, in the hope that something might stick and you can declare a victory - perhaps instead you might want to go back to your original argument and think what possible relevance this line of argument has to do with any of it.

Meanwhile, let's look at the history and evolution of the car. Cugnot developed the model for a steam powered tractor in 1770, but it was very impractical. Murdoch developed a more practical model in 1784. Trevithick actually put one on the road in 1801. Meanwhile, Kubilin in Russia built a different model, which included seperate design elements still seen in modern cars. Countless others experimented and contributed to the field of knowledge. Many different types of fuel were experimented with, until in 1870 Marcus built one that used gasoline. In 1885 Benz built the first internal combustion engine. Then Daimler built the first car designed from the ground up as a car, not as a horse cart with an engine. Then Benz in Germany built the first production car in 1888. From there you've got countless more start up companies, employing thousands of engineers to keep evolving the design of the car, until you end up with my Mazda 6.

You want another one. I was thinking about doing Australian political history instead, the evolution from colony to independent memeber of the commonwealth. I could if you insist, or you could go back and read what you've argued here, read what you started with... think for a bit and then ask yourself 'what on Earth has my silly claim here got to do with anything in the substance of my actual claim?'

The substance of my actual claim still stands. Great change happens suddenly. You again are proving my earlier points of legislative creep. Slow change in politics results in s steady eroding of freedom. So thank you for agreeing with that part of my argument. As for scientific progress, yes that happens in incremental steps wiith sudden leaps. But we were not talking of scientific progress were we, we were talking about social and economic progress.

**Mango**

namegoeshere wrote:
Mango wrote:
namegoeshere wrote:I think people are essentially good. Or at least 70% good 30% jerk. Just in response to all the absolutist statements being made.

In Western countries typically lefty lefty gov intervention has helped economies. Lack of it leads to greater peaks and troughs. Though perhaps to some degree that isn't the worst thing.

If by helping the economy with double digit unemployment and 0-4% annual growth, and crippling tax burdens on those who have jobs supporting the ones that are among the double digit unemployed, as seen in most EU nations, then yes, lefty lefty governments do indeed help the economy.

Except Europe as a whole is richer than America, has less debt, shorter working weeks, and the unemployed are far more comfortable. America is richer in the sense of having much greater purchasing power for individuals - the tax burden is not crippling.

Using 2005 as the benchmark, since that is the last year of data from the eu webpage
EU population: 493 million
US population: 295 million
That puts the total population of the US as roughly 40% of the EU

GDP of the EU in 2005
10957.9 Billion Euros
GDP of the US in 2005
10011.9 Billion Euros
So by your logic a group of nations with a 40% larger population has a 8.6% higher GDP than the US and that makes you richer? To be on par the EU would have to have a GDP of 14000 Billion Euros. I think Europe falls a wee bit short of that.

**Mango**

reds8n wrote:
Mango wrote:
7. "Almost all progress has been the result of minor achievements, sensible reforms, clever innovations, adding up over centuries." again you make an unsupported argument. Which happens to be false.

Because the advances we make in science are all just sudden developments, no one at all spends years and years researching stuff. That human genome project, they actually did all the work in about 1 afternoon, and just dragged it out to squeeze as much money out of it as they could. Modern computers ? Actually invented in 1817, it's just the spiteful govt. holding back all the real advancements just to stick it to the people !

Modern democracy and the legal systems we have ? All knocked together in one afternoon on a napkin in a Tacobell.

Again we are progress in politics and economics, not science. Please compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges. The changes in technology do not follow the changes in social or economic terms. Technological advancement follows a more logorithmic curve. Economies and politics do not.

**reds8n**

But that's (one of) the essential flaws in your argument. You don't get progress in one without progress in the others. Something you spectacularly fail to account for.

For example the rise to power of Hitler -- and we're only on page 2 of the thread, damn you Godwin!-- didn't just happen suddenly and unexpectedly, it was the result of many things dating back to ( mainly) the end of WW I and the policies and events that followed.

And "why did man bury thinsg with the dead" ?... err.... religion .

**Frazzled**

namegoeshere wrote:
Mango wrote:
namegoeshere wrote:I think people are essentially good. Or at least 70% good 30% jerk. Just in response to all the absolutist statements being made.

In Western countries typically lefty lefty gov intervention has helped economies. Lack of it leads to greater peaks and troughs. Though perhaps to some degree that isn't the worst thing.

If by helping the economy with double digit unemployment and 0-4% annual growth, and crippling tax burdens on those who have jobs supporting the ones that are among the double digit unemployed, as seen in most EU nations, then yes, lefty lefty governments do indeed help the economy.

Except Europe as a whole is richer than America, has less debt, shorter working weeks, and the unemployed are far more comfortable. America is richer in the sense of having much greater purchasing power for individuals - the tax burden is not crippling.

Please show me a statistic where the EU is is wealthier than the US, and has less debt.

Please show me a statistic where any nation is wealthier than the US.

**reds8n**

Please show me a statistic where any nation is wealthier than the US.

from the CIA factbook

**Mango**

Hi all,
Polonius, Sebster, Frazzled, killkrazy et. al.
I think it is time to take a step back, and sum up my arguments, since the thread itself is getting cluttered with tangents.

Original intent of the post was to point out the irony of the fact that 25 years ago, it was the US lecturing the Russians on the dangers of communism and it’s step child, communist-lite, aka socialism. No the world has turned and the Russians feel the need (however hypocritical) to lecture us on the same topic.

Then I offered a theory on how this came to be. I will now attempt to explain the logic behind my reasoning.

1. The absence of law is anarchy (or Chaos if you will, since that fits in with the whole WH40K thing better than the term anarchy)
2. Anarchy is undesirable for humans
3. If anarchy is undesirable, then organized society is more desirable
4. Chaos by definition, cannot be predicted
5. To be organized something has to follow predictable behavior
6. Rules allow for predictable behavior
7. To have an organized society, a society must have rules.
8. Rules exist to restrict human behavior. (without rules/laws/customs you have anarchy)
9. Rules to serve their purpose, must be enforced, otherwise you have no rule.
10. Whatever the purpose of a rule, it has to have some degree of force to make sure people follow it. (that force can take the form of ostracism, banishment, incarceration, fines, or physical punishment. I will substitute law instead of rule going forward.
11. So ultimately, laws exist to allow a society to function
a. laws work by restricting behavior
b. laws are enforced by the use or threat of force.
12. Governments grew out of the need to have someone enforce the laws.
13. Laws, and by extension, governments are needed to allow a society to function
14. Governments exist in many forms.
15. All have certain elements in common.
a. A government has to have the sole authority to use force
b. A government has to have the sole ability to enact laws
c. A government has to be able to maintain territorial integrity
If a government does not do these three things, it will fail.

What I am arguing is this.
Complete freedom=anarchy
Laws=less freedom
More laws = even less freedom
The bigger the government the more it requires in laws and taxes to function (a tax is the result of a law)
The more laws that are passed, the less free a society is.
No government remains static and survives. To change, a government passes new laws. Rarely do governments get rid of old laws.
So if the original laws are not reduced, and new laws are enacted, then you have more laws than previously. The more laws you have, the less freedom.
Again, I am not arguing the merit of individual laws. I am stating that more laws equals less freedom. A democracy is a government. Every year, a government passes new laws. Every year governments become more intrusive.

In the US this is exactly what has happened. A citizen of the USA today, is less free than a Citizen of 25 years ago, who is less free than a citizen of 50 years ago. They are less free because they are living under progressively more laws. That is not really disputable. That is just factual.

I think here is where most of the arguments can and will take place:

One society can be more free than another, even if both have a government. A prime example would be the Former USSR and the USA. Very few people would argue that the citizens of the USSR had more freedom than the citizens of the USA. The major difference between the two forms of government was the degree of governmental intrusion in the life of individual citizens.

Is one form of government more socially just than another? That depends. The citizens of the USSR for example had access to state run universal health care. The USA did not. This meant that some citizens of the USA had less access to health care than did a Soviet citizen. Socially, when talking only of health care, the Soviet System was more equal than was the US system. Would a citizen of the US be able to read what they wanted? Yes. Would a US citizen be able to travel where they wanted? Yes. Would a US citizen be able to gather together in a group and discuss anything they wanted? Yes. Could they do that in the Soviet Union? No. Was it better to live under the Soviet System or the US system? Again that is a matter of opinion and preference. I would say that it was better to live under the US system, but that is an opinion.

Again arguing the merits of a socialist system as opposed to a republic capitalist society, is a matter of opinion. Is one system less free than the other? Yes. Which one do you want to live in, that is personal choice. My personal choice and opinion is that the less control over my life another person has, the better. I do realize that a certain level of governmental control is necessary for a society to function. However, I want that level to be as small as possible.

My personal opinion is that justice does not equal equality. Say that over a period of years, I work hard, and collect, prime, and paint 100 models. Then I meet someone who just started collecting models, and has only acquired 50 of them. I have 100 models of space marines, and someone else has 50, equality would demand that I give that person 25 of my models. That way both would have 75 models. Is that equal? Yes. Is that justice? That depends. If I chose of my own free will to give that person 25 models, that would be justice. If a third party took them at gunpoint, and gave them to the other person would that be justice? No. If the third party passed a law (which again is backed by force) and took my models and gave them to another, is that justice? Again I would say no. Is it equal? Yes. The main difference is that amount of personal choice I have in the mater. In life of course, things are not this cut and dry. One person has more money and better health care. So a third party raises taxes on that person, and gives it to a person with less money and less healthcare. Is that person having access to more health care and money desirable? Yes. Is it still as desirable when the first person has it taken from them without their say? That is where the arguments really start heating up.

**reds8n**

Strictly speaking there is a difference between anarchy and chaos though.

In the US this is exactly what has happened. A citizen of the USA today, is less free than a Citizen of 25 years ago, who is less free than a citizen of 50 years ago. They are less free because they are living under progressively more laws. That is not really disputable. That is just factual.

Yes and no. The access to information through things like the internet-- much bigger now than 25 years ago-- is a big enabler in many ways.

And you seem to firget that many laws exist to protect freedoms. Roe vs. Wade and the consequences of that ruling for example "frees" people in certain ways.

**Frazzled**

reds8n wrote:
Please show me a statistic where any nation is wealthier than the US.

from the CIA factbook

Thats per capita, its not the entire EU. Plus, wait a year, when the recession kicks in, we'll see who's still wealthy. The UK is forecast to have a substantially worse recession than the US. Only they and Germany come close to the US so thats a great big meh.

**reds8n**

But you asked for "any nation" see ?

and "a" statistic.

Ask and thou shall receive etc etc

And yes, I think the recession will hit harder here than over the pond. Even worse in Germany from the news this week.

Seeing as the EU isn't a nation*, and therefore it has a myriad of different taxes, costs of living etc etc, any such comparison is futile in my opinion.

* yet.

**Frazzled**

Reds8n your logic and facts cannot overcome my innate crotchetyness!

**reds8n**

I so read that as just "crotch" for a moment there.

**Mango**

reds8n wrote:Strictly speaking there is a difference between anarchy and chaos though.

In the US this is exactly what has happened. A citizen of the USA today, is less free than a Citizen of 25 years ago, who is less free than a citizen of 50 years ago. They are less free because they are living under progressively more laws. That is not really disputable. That is just factual.

Yes and no. The access to information through things like the internet-- much bigger now than 25 years ago-- is a big enabler in many ways.

And you seem to firget that many laws exist to protect freedoms. Roe vs. Wade and the consequences of that ruling for example "frees" people in certain ways.

Bringing up abortion is a red herring. I will not discuss abortion on this thread, it is a topic for another. With that being said, I will discuss the jist of your argument.

You even pointed out the inherant flaw in your arguent "it frees people in certain ways" It does so by limiting the freedoms of another.
A law that exist to protect freedoms protects them by limiting the freedom of another. To use the example of free speech and shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. One law exists, which says the congress shall enact no law impugning on a persons right to free speech. However, a person is not allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. This is limiting free speech. The argument was that a person yelling fire in a crowded theater is endangering others, which infringes on their rights. So you can limit free speech. So free speech does not truly exist. So to sum up, one law was passed. Then another ruling came down to clarify the first law, which limited the original law in other words another law). So more laws were passed to limit freedom. Was the ruling good or bad? That again is personal opinion. Did one law (or ruling) get added? Yes. Did that rule or law decrease a persons freedom? Yes.

As for the internet, enables more people to access more information faster. In most western societies, they still had access to that information, only it took time and effort. It was called a library. The internet sped things up. But also opens up a whole bunch of oppurtunities for abuse. Google for example. We all use it and use it frequently. What if the gatekeepers of information at google decide to limit what information is available? Would we even know if they were doing it? Information and knowledge is a very powerful thing. Control of that information and knowledge is even more so. Remember, you never have to convince ALL people of a certain viewpoint, you just have to convince enough of them. If you can limit the speed and access to knowledge and information you can make it easier to control all of them. Am I saying this is happening? No. Am I saying the possibility for abuse exists? Yes. Look at China. They do control access to information on the internet. No all of it, but enough of it.

**reds8n**

Did that rule or law decrease a persons freedom? Yes.

You've missed my point. It also increased the freedom of others more-- they know that if they hear someone shouting "fire" it ( in all probability) will be genuine and not some prick. Those peoples right to just sit down and enjoy the play/film/sex show/whatever they paid for is in fact more protected. As is the right to try and earn a crust by the hosts . And the performers etc etc

I don't think abortion is a red herring either, but I agree that can spiral off into places we'd best not go.

A lot of people didn't and don't have access to libraries, and even then the choice of what is likely to be available is far more controlled and censorious than the internet. You don't think the books therein were there by random chance do you ?

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Abortion.

Make it legal. Leave it to the conscience of the individual.

**Mango**

Mad Doc Grotsnik,
Pissy lagers suck. So do ales. The only good thing that came out of the British Isles(beverage wise) is Balvenie Scotch. That is heaven in a bottle.

But please let's try to keep this on topic.

reds8n,
It did not increase others rights more. It kept the ones they already had, the same. It limited one persons rights.

**Mango**

reds8n,
I forgot to also mention that the same people without access to libraries are generally the same people without access to the internet. Libraries come in any different flavors, You have municipal libraries, school libraries, and university libraries, as well as libraries founded by individuals. They have a wide variety. More variety, less control. What percentage of market share does google control on the internet search engines? 80% 90%. Less variety equals less choice equals less freedom. Again going back to my point, the more you limit someone/thing, the less freedom people have.

**Mango**

On another tangent. (oh the ironies)

Does anyone but me appreciate the humor in me asking someone to stay on topic in a forum titled "off-topic"?

Now back to the whole Daemon Hunters being part of homeland security............

**reds8n**

I said protects their rights more. Which makes them freer as the existing rights they have are mroe secure/harder to get rid of.

**Mango**

I am going to use the term ability in a few cases , because nowhere is it written that people have the RIGHT to go to the theater. They have the ABILITY to go to the theater.

It did not protect their rights. Before the case people had the ability to go to a theater. After the case, people had the ability to go to the theater. In that nothing changed. No new right was created. No law was passed saying people had the right to go to the theater. So all the ruling accomplished was it did not change peoples existing ability. It did, however limit one person's RIGHTS.

Again. I am not commenting on the merit of the case. I am not saying that a person should go into a theater and yell fire. What I am saying is that a law was passed that restricted a persons speech, while at the same time not creating any more freedoms or rights.