Are you spending your way to disaster?

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by miko2d
Sixpence: "If I understand that right, what you would propose would be a government run by the few, writing laws for the many, but the many not having any say in the laws? That doesn't sound very democratic to me."

  Oh, I am not arguing that our governmenmt is not democratic. Sure it is. I am saying that it is oppressive. What does democracy and freedom from oppression have to do with each other?

According to Miko, the American democracy is a bunch of thugs forcing their will upon us.

 Upon each other.

 If someone gets enough of like-minded people together, theyc an vote on what you can wear, eat or drink, what kinds of sex youc an have and with whom, what you can say and what you can read. How many children you can have and how you shoudl raise them. Who you can trade with. Basically, anything they want to vote on.
 They can certainly decide how much property you should own and how much income you should keep and penalise you for certain lifestyle choices by confiscaing more or less of it.
 They can change rules every day.
 You can register you futile protest or you can join in voting on what you neighbours should be forced to do.

 Quite opposite to what teh Founding Fathers intended.

 miko

So the majority deciding what we should do is not what what our Founding Fathers intended? I disagree. I think that was their exact intention. Being told what to do by the chosen few( kings and dictators) was oppressive. If we are going to be told what to do, it should be decided by the majority.

[miko2d]

gofaster: To be more accurate,  Federal laws are fences, local laws are leashes.  And they all restrict your freedom.

 Oh, my... You take an analogy all the way to absurd. Iyt's an analoge, for chist's sake, not an exact formula.

The only true freedom would be anarchy - freedom from responsibility, freedom from consequences,..  

 BS. If the strong state had only laws protecting people's person and property from assault and fraud, how would that be anarchy? Each person would be completely responcible for the consequences of his/her own actions, not being able to saddle others with responcibilities against their will.

...freedom from direction.

 I see. You need direction? So you are slave by nature. Fine. I respect that choice of yours. I have other values.

 miko

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Sixpence
So laws equal oppression. So anarchy it is.

Anarchy: 1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

utopian:1 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of a utopia; especially : having impossibly ideal conditions especially of social organization
2 : proposing or advocating impractically ideal social and political schemes
3 : impossibly ideal : VISIONARY
4 : believing in, advocating, or having the characteristics of utopian socialism

[miko2d]

Sixpence: So the majority deciding what we should do is not what what our Founding Fathers intended?

 Of course not. They strictly limited the issues on which the majority could vote - at least on federal level.

 A majority was not allowed to vote on which religion to establish, what is permissible to say or print, what kind of money to use instead of gold or silver coin - only on few specific issues.
 Everything else they believed to be a private business or the state/municipality business.

 I can form a cooperative with you, buy a property in common - say a farm or a business company. In this way democratic voting (according to persons or according to shares owned) would be the most fair way to manage our shared property. We could elect directors, decide how to direct resources, etc.

 But it would not entitle you to vote what I can smoke, eat and drink, whom I should marry and how I shoudl raise my children.

 miko

[gofaster]

Originally posted by miko2d
If someone gets enough of like-minded people together, theyc an vote on what you can wear, eat or drink, what kinds of sex youc an have and with whom, what you can say and what you can read. How many children you can have and how you shoudl raise them. Who you can trade with. Basically, anything they want to vote on.
 They can certainly decide how much property you should own and how much income you should keep and penalise you for certain lifestyle choices by confiscaing more or less of it.
 They can change rules every day.
 You can register you futile protest or you can join in voting on what you neighbours should be forced to do.

 Quite opposite to what the Founding Fathers intended.

 miko

Not really.  You may want to re-read The Federalist papers at Yale Law School's website http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed.htm

No. 2 states "Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers."

The specifics are contained in the US Constitution as far was what powers the federal government shall have, including issues of taxation and property.

[miko2d]

gofaster: Not really.  You may want to re-read The Federalist papers at Yale Law School's website

 I have a copy. I believe it agrees with what I said. What particular statement do you have in mind?

 miko

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Badger
Somehow I doubt Miko will ever confuse us with Roads Scholars....

No no, I had it right...."Rowgue" scholars.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by miko2d
I can form a cooperative with you, buy a property in common - say a farm or a business company. In this way democratic voting (according to persons or according to shares owned) would be the most fair way to manage our shared property. We could elect directors, decide how to direct resources, etc.

 But it would not entitle you to vote what I can smoke, eat and drink, whom I should marry and how I shoudl raise my children.

 miko

I agree, to a point. But at some point there needs to be laws that regulate us. It might be in the best interest of the majority to tell you where you can smoke. If the majority of us do not want smoke where we dine in public, this is not telling you that you can't smoke. So in that case you are reaching to say it is oppressive.

On a larger scale, we vote on how to pay for those who have health problems from smoking all their life and cannot afford to pay for those health expenses. The majority will decide, and to some it will be oppressive, to others it will be the democratic thing to do.

[mietla]

Originally posted by Sixpence
"If I understand that right, what you would propose would be a government run by the few, writing laws for the many, but the many not having any say in the laws? That doesn't sound very democratic to me."

 According to Miko, the American democracy is a bunch of thugs forcing their will upon us.

The country being run by the few....dictator?

You make a quite an effort to not understand what is said here.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by mietla
You make a quite an effort to not understand what is said here.

Half of that quote is not mine
"If I understand that right, what you would propose would be a government run by the few, writing laws for the many, but the many not having any say in the laws? That doesn't sound very democratic to me."

The last half is, and it was taken from something he said in another post.

[gofaster]

Originally posted by miko2d
gofaster: Not really.  You may want to re-read The Federalist papers at Yale Law School's website

 I have a copy. I believe it agrees with what I said. What particular statement do you have in mind?

 miko

Miko2d: If someone gets enough of like-minded people together, they can vote on what you can wear, eat or drink, what kinds of sex you can have and with whom, what you can say and what you can read. How many children you can have and how you shoudl raise them. Who you can trade with. Basically, anything they want to vote on."

This is not entirely correct.  The U.S. Constitution reserves specific powers to the federal government, including trade between states and foreign nations.  Section 8, Clause 3.

"Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

What you can say and what you can worship is contained in the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

If someone is walking around telling you how many children you can have, he's probably a priest, and those aren't elected officials under the US Constitution.

Miko2D: "They can certainly decide how much property you should own and how much income you should keep and penalise you for certain lifestyle choices by confiscaing more or less of it."

This is correct.  Its contained in Section 7, Clause 1:

"Clause 1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

and Section 8, Clause 1:

"Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "

Incidentally, it was affirmed (in 1913) in Amendment XVI regarding income taxes:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

After all, somebody has to pay the bills to keep and maintain a military and the government.  It might as well be the people benefitting from the government's provisions.

Miko2d: "They can change rules every day."

Of course they can.  That's why we elected them to run things.

 
miko2D: "You can register you futile protest or you can join in voting on what you neighbours should be forced to do.

Exactly.  Protests are protected under the US Constitution.  Whether or not they're futile depends on the merit of the issue.

So how is this opposite from what the Founding Fathers intended?

[Sixpence]

I understand alot of what he says. There are some laws that I do see as oppressive. There are some parts of the patriot act I do not agree with. I believe a man's home should not be violated as some laws allow. He makes a good point on some issues, on some I disagree. I disagree on his assessment of the American democracy.

[mietla]

Originally posted by gofaster
After all, somebody has to pay the bills to keep and maintain a military and the government.  

Yes, but if the government paid only legitimate bills like defense (including control of immigration), our taxes would be 15% of what they are now.

85% of what they collect now is used to redistribute the wealth and social engineer.

It might as well be the people benefitting from the government's provisions.

Would be nice, but as it is now, some people pay taxes, and others (who do not pay) benefit.

[gofaster]

Originally posted by mietla
Would be nice, but as it is now, some people pay taxes, and others (who do not pay) benefit.

Maybe we should start taxing the churches, the poor, and the downtrodden.  Those Catholics, Jesuits, and Baptists have had it good for too long!

[mietla]

You find it funny?