User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 112

  1. #21
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,122

    Default

    Government = the legitimate arm of force of a state

    Oh god I spend too much time in soc classes

    I would say that if they were going to do that they'd sure as F*&k better collect everyone's DNA instead of that of just a few They would have been collecting mine in first grade instead of that of the seemingly innocent kid who sat beside me and ended up killing someone over a bag of meth

    Judging who will be a criminal and who won't at that young of age is just rediculous :rolli: sure, there can be signs, but if I was judged that early in life I have no idea where I'd be now instead of graduating college on scholarship

    I wouldn't be particularly trusting after reading about the whole thing with the SC BMV and selling of info to telemarketers- while I don't care if the IRS has my info (they haven't sold it yet, by my knowlege) I wouldn't necissarily trust all branches to not sell my info- after all, our govt is a bit short on cash and lobbyists have more than a fair share of influence
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  2. #22
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddon't View Post
    ...I feel it is the state's duty to protect its citizens however it can.
    I strongly disagree.

    There must be an opposing principle to the state's duty to provide safety to its citizens; otherwise the state is ethically justified to take us all into protective custody.

  3. #23
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    The only DNA records the government should have on its citizens is that which is required as evidence in the prosecution of/defense against a criminal charge. If the citizen is acquitted of the crime, DNA records should no longer be kept on them.
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

  4. #24
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    I strongly disagree.

    There must be an opposing principle to the state's duty to provide safety to its citizens; otherwise the state is ethically justified to take us all into protective custody.
    I'm not arguing that the state should have absolute power over our protection. It is simply a fact that the state will try to protect its citizens however it can. That is the nature of the state. It is the duty of the citizens who make up the state to limit that power. However, if citizens are apathetic or fearful of the state, then it will take as much power as it can get. People just love to ignore the fact that in America, it is a state "by the people, for the people" so they don't have to take any personal responsiblity in how it is run. I believe people who think like that don't deserve freedom.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  5. #25
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddon't View Post
    I'm not arguing that the state should have absolute power over our protection. It is simply a fact that the state will try to protect its citizens however it can. That is the nature of the state. It is the duty of the citizens who make up the state to limit that power. However, if citizens are apathetic or fearful of the state, then it will take as much power as it can get. People just love to ignore the fact that in America, it is a state "by the people, for the people" so they don't have to take any personal responsiblity in how it is run. I believe people who think like that don't deserve freedom.
    I don't believe that, either. I certainly have reservations about the federal government and the local law enforcement in this city, and rightfully so. And the United States of America is not "by the people, for the people." That was what Abraham Lincoln said (wrongly, IMHO). We are supposed to have a rule of law, not of men.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  6. #26
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_moods View Post
    Individuals ARE the owners of rights, and the government is supposed to be the guarantor of them. It has done a pretty crap job recently, don't you think?[
    Nope. I would say individuals have a done a crappy job in securing their rights through the government. The state's job is to secure its citizen's welfare and protection, and it is the duty of individuals, as parts of the state, to limit that power. You thinking is typical of someone who wants to lay blame on the state for something that is entirely your fault because of your lack of activism and the people you have elected. I feel no sympathy for those who do not take an active part in the government.

    Also, Thomas Jefferson would have totally happy with someone sitting at home and decrying the state as a plague. It is within everyone's natural rights to do so, and not everyone can or should be involved in politics. He was one of the most consistent advocates of limited government of his time. You think he'd look upon the current Democratic or Republican parties fondly?
    While I disagree with your sentiment another thing to remember about Thomas Jefferson is he was a racist, slave owner who lived 300 years ago. Times and people have changed, and although the original founders had some amazing ideals, they weren't perfect, which they acknowledged by giving us the power to amend them. The idea that "all men are created equal" meant only white men who owned property. It was not extended to those of different races, and not to women. Those are positive changes, but the founding fathers, especially Jefferson, probably would have looked down on those. That is why libertarians are backwards. They reject the progress we have made because they value only the original ideas of the founding fathers, which were namely the protection of individual rights for all white men who own property.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  7. #27
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddon't View Post
    Nope. I would say individuals have a done a crappy job in securing their rights through the government. The state's job is to secure its citizen's welfare and protection, and it is the duty of individuals, as parts of the state, to limit that power. You thinking is typical of someone who wants to lay blame on the state for something that is entirely your fault because of your lack of activism and the people you have elected. I feel no sympathy for those who do not take an active part in the government.



    While I disagree with your sentiment another thing to remember about Thomas Jefferson is he was a racist, slave owner who lived 300 years ago. Times and people have changed, and although the original founders had some amazing ideals, they weren't perfect, which they acknowledged by giving us the power to amend them. The idea that "all men are created equal" meant only white men who owned property. It was not extended to those of different races, and not to women. Those are positive changes, but the founding fathers, especially Jefferson, probably would have looked down on those. That is why libertarians are backwards. They reject the progress we have made because they value only the original ideas of the founding fathers, which were namely the protection of individual rights for all white men who own property.
    You're laboring under a fundamental misapprehension of libertarianism if you think that it's a backwards-looking philosophy (and, last time I checked, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were part of the Constitution that libertarians hold dear; pretty much all of it, outside of the 16th and 17th Amendments, in fact). I could name about 100 political thinkers, politicians, economists, and sociologists of the 20th Century that have contributed to my own beliefs (like Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Robert Nozick). And I have voted in each election year since 2000 (when I turned 18), and I have contributed to political campaigns on more than one occasion. However, it is absolutely not "my fault" that the federal government oversteps it bounds with near-impunity all the time. Moreover, it is absolutely within the spirit of patriotism to decry your government and want as little to do with it as possible. It's not my way, but it's an American right. Look at Thoreau.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  8. #28
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,122

    Default

    the political theorists are dead pure moods- you should be thinking for yourself by this point in your life, you're a big boy now!


    Last edited by miss fortune; 04-01-2008 at 01:32 PM. Reason: added emoticon- I should quit stirring the shit sometimes...
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  9. #29
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_moods View Post
    You're laboring under a fundamental misapprehension of libertarianism if you think that it's a backwards-looking philosophy (and, last time I checked, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were part of the Constitution that libertarians hold dear; pretty much all of it, outside of the 16th and 17th Amendments, in fact). I could name about 100 political thinkers, politicians, economists, and sociologists of the 20th Century that have contributed to my own beliefs (like Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Robert Nozick). And I have voted in each election year since 2000 (when I turned 18), and I have contributed to political campaigns on more than one occasion. However, it is absolutely not "my fault" that the federal government oversteps it bounds with near-impunity all the time. Moreover, it is absolutely within the spirit of patriotism to decry your government and want as little to do with it as possible. It's not my way, but it's an American right. Look at Thoreau.
    It isn't just whether you vote, it is who you vote for. If you voted for Bush, which I suspect you did under the delusion that he would provide you with a smaller government and a freer market, then I don't feel sympathetic for you and it is your fault. I knew all the way back in the Bush/Gore election that he was bad news and I was very vocal about it.
    Not to mention that these changes haven't occurred overnight. If you had fought every piece of legislation which stripped away a bit more of your individual rights, then I might feel sorry for you, but I'm sure you didn't. All you did was "vote" and "contribute". That isn't activism, and that isn't taking a very active part in the government.
    Libertarianism is backwards. It is ideology centered, like communism. It isn't practical, and it ignores the relativism of reality and the changing nature of people. It's a philosophy of individualism and it's inherent flaw is that we live in a world full of naturally occurring collectives. So libertarians have to ignore reality in order to justify their ideology.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  10. #30
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddon't View Post
    It is simply a fact that the state will try to protect its citizens however it can. That is the nature of the state.
    Well, granted... but that's different from saying "...I feel it is the state's duty to protect its citizens however it can."

    This modified stance of yours is one with which I find somewhat more common ground. I still don't entirely agree with it... there are plenty of states that show little inclination to protect their citizens... but I do see that it's a trait of the better-developed republics.

Similar Threads

  1. DNA database for Newborns in USA?
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-10-2008, 12:20 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-10-2007, 10:56 PM
  3. Bush apparently now OK with Mercury for Children
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-22-2007, 12:59 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO