• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Which is most important to you? Freedom, Equality, or Order?

Which is most important to you?

  • Freedom

    Votes: 71 60.7%

  • Social Order

    Votes: 13 11.1%

  • Equality

    Votes: 18 15.4%

  • Carrots

    Votes: 15 12.8%
  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .
#61
Unrepresented said:
The entire crux of this discussion is based around what you think people should be entitled to as citizens. We can settle for what we have, or we can try and improve it by demanding safer, better, and more accountable producers.

Do chemical companies have a right to pollute the earth, air, and water? Some people are satisfied with their products.

Do cell phone companies have a right to contribute to wars in Africa because that's where materials they currently need are located? Some people are satisfied with their products.

Do manufacturers have a right to outsource their labor at the expense of American workers? Some people are still satisfied with their products.

I'm not asking for specific answers, I'm just trying to establish that gov't's are here at the consent of the people, no matter how much they try and convince you otherwise. Corportations by current legislation are here to steal from us, flat and simple. They're at best "necessary evils."

Only if you're voting for the wrong politician.
Click to expand...

So people who are willing to work harder for less dont deserve the job because they are not american? Interesting.
 
#68
Deluge Of Sound said:
You guys know the real elephant in the room, right?

Mike_v_s is right. I know we all like to pretend like he's not, but he hit the nail on the head this time.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for the vote of confidence; unfortunately, there seems to be a glass ceiling of comprehension on this subject. This may well be my last attempt to use Windex.
bassrique said:
The USC lays out the Federal Governments enumerated powers [very minimal] and leaves the rest to the states. If you have 1000 things you could do, yet you've limited yourself to a dozen, have you not done more limiting than creating? The USC is a document of the restraint of centralized power, as well as the liberty of the individual.
Click to expand...
The Constitution creates the centralized power and further reduces your liberty by leaving the rest to the States instead of you, the individual.

Your initial premise was that the founding fathers put freedom as their first priority in their documents. I just find it ironic that the documents you reference are, by definition, the Order the OP spoke of.

I'm not saying they didn't value the concept. Far from it. I'm just pointing out that many people seem to prefer to focus on the smaller issues of individual liberties outlined/preserved in a document that creates a hegemon and lawful subsidiaries and grants those entities the ability to further restrict your actions at their discretion.

With that, I'm probably done. Probably. Next time you stop at a stop sign with no other cars in sight, think about your personal freedoms. You are free to do as you please in this country within the confines of the Order established by the US Constitution and the documents borne of its authority.

Mike
 
#69
Mike,

Your understanding of the USC is strange. The original document puts forth the most minimalist central government in the history of mankind. The alternative you hold up in comparison seems to be no organized government at all, which really has not existed since neolithic times.
 
#70
bassrique said:
Mike,

Your understanding of the USC is strange. The original document puts forth the most minimalist central government in the history of mankind. The alternative you hold up in comparison seems to be no organized government at all, which really has not existed since neolithic times.
Click to expand...

Don't be a twit. The government doesn't exist without the Constitution, therefore the Constitution, by virtue of creating said governing body, is restricting your freedom.

This isn't about alternatives, this is about a very basic concept that you seem to be willfully ignoring. While the USC may have created one of the most minimalist central governments (its never a good idea to use absolutes, by the way), its still creating restrictions on your freedoms. That's what a government is--check out the phrase "social contract" and some John Locke if you're of the mind to disagree.

As for no organized government not existing since neolithic times, I suggest you take a look around the world and re-evaluate that statement.
 
#73
According to Peter Tosh, the source I turn to for questions of this nature, the answer is equality.

He claims: There aint gonna be no peace till man get's equal rights and justice.

He also states: I would like to be free, all I need is your color.

So based on Peter Tosh's observations of this subject matter, both peace (social order) and freedom are both predicated upon equality.

There you have it.
 
#75
Deluge Of Sound said:
Don't be a twit. The government doesn't exist without the Constitution, therefore the Constitution, by virtue of creating said governing body, is restricting your freedom.

This isn't about alternatives, this is about a very basic concept that you seem to be willfully ignoring. While the USC may have created one of the most minimalist central governments (its never a good idea to use absolutes, by the way), its still creating restrictions on your freedoms. That's what a government is--check out the phrase "social contract" and some John Locke if you're of the mind to disagree.

As for no organized government not existing since neolithic times, I suggest you take a look around the world and re-evaluate that statement.
Click to expand...

This seems to be a word game based on poor logic. The Framers "put liberty first" so to speak. The strange argument against this proposition seems to be that a government was created at all, rather than the alternative of anarchy. Since we must examine the real world, where governments do exist, a document that puts forth the most minimalist government in history is therefore a document that limits what government can do, w/in the context of creating a new government of course. Again, the alternative is no government, and that's not an idea based in reality. The context of this discussion is government, get it?

At times there have been and are lapses in government due to war, disease, or some other catastrophe. Other than that, there have been governments. Perhaps I stepped it bit too far with the "neolithic" line, but could you find me a government charter that limits a central government as much as the USC?
 
#76
bassrique said:
This seems to be a word game based on poor logic. The Framers "put liberty first" so to speak. The strange argument against this proposition seems to be that a government was created at all, rather than the alternative of anarchy. Since we must examine the real world, where governments do exist, a document that puts forth the most minimalist government in history is therefore a document that limits what government can do, w/in the context of creating a new government of course. Again, the alternative is no government, and that's not an idea based in reality. The context of this discussion is government, get it?
Click to expand...

(A side note: The fact that you assume that a lack of centralized government is infeasible seems to show that your definition of "the real world" is tailored around capital-oriented first-world nations that need centralized governments to maintain a massive infrastructure.)


In response to the rest of your post, I'm just going to quote mike, 'cause he's got it right.

mike_v_s said:
I'm not saying they didn't value the concept. Far from it. I'm just pointing out that many people seem to prefer to focus on the smaller issues of individual liberties outlined/preserved in a document that creates a hegemon and lawful subsidiaries and grants those entities the ability to further restrict your actions at their discretion.
Click to expand...
 
#77
When comparing the USC to nothing, then it primarily is a document assumes some powers at the expense of the individual. I say that's not logical, as there could not have been zero government.

When thinking in real terms, we must compare the founding document of the US, with similar documents and governments at the time and even in the past.

When the rest of the world had governments that gave little or no respect to the individual, the minimalist US Constitution pulled back those reigns of power and tyranny, and therefore it is a document of restraint.

Once again, in the context of the real world as opposed to the theoretical, the USC is a document that outlined the restraint of Federal power.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back