The 2nd Amendment...... for Musket's only? According to libs

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
_The Erotic Apologist
_Emeritus
Posts: 3050
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:07 pm

Re: The 2nd Amendment...... for Musket's only? According to

Post by _The Erotic Apologist »

Not that it matters, but the Revolutionary War saw the debut of the world's first practical and reliable breech-loading rifle:

Image
Surprise, surprise, there is no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately.
--Yahoo Bot

I pray thee, sir, forgive me for the mess. And whether I shot first, I'll not confess.
--Han Solo, from William Shakespeare's Star Wars
_ldsfaqs
_Emeritus
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:41 pm

Re: The 2nd Amendment...... for Musket's only? According to

Post by _ldsfaqs »

MeDotOrg wrote:
ldsfaqs wrote:- Ideology's based on control by the state and forced confiscation and distribution in one form or another, limits freedoms from some to great.

Fascim
....Communism
........Socialism
............Mixed Breeds, Relativists, Can't decide or comprehend good vs evil, left from right, etc. lol
........Conservatism
....Libertarianism
...Anarchy


According to your scale, I would be a 'Mixed Breed'. (I find it interesting that you use the term 'mixed breed' instead of 'hybrid'). So let's take a trip down miscegenation highway.

It's not because I cannot distinguish right from wrong (or left from right, which is particularly bizarre), My position is not driven by ideology, but empiricism. I do not view politics as some sort of zero sum game between left and right.

Example: Transportation. Because I cannot "comprehend...left from right", I believe in a hybrid solution: Private vehicles, public transportation and public roads.

This is clearly giving to the poor from the rich. In a society where there was no income distribution, all roads would be toll roads and all transportation would be private. Imagine commuting in New York without public roads or transportation.

The short answer is that all societies are a balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of the collective. The best societies do not view needs of the individual or the collective as being absolute good or evil, they balance the needs of both.


1. Actually I would have said Hybrid, instead of mixed breed, but it was late, was tired, and couldn't think of the word, so I said mixed breed instead.
Sorry, no conspiracy here to try and justify your judgment of my judgment.

2. And that is where you relativists fail in your judgment. You think because you are in the middle, that means only you are "empirical".
I can easily prove you wrong in that..... I have spent my entire life being "empirical", understanding all sides, human behavior, to seek out the "true" and "best" way of both understanding and doing all things. My doing that since the age of 6 intentionally seeking wisdom, has resulted in me being on the right.

Thus, like I said, you have no real clue what is really true and right, you're just guessing and throwing things together.
by the way, I gained the ideology by being empirical..... I didn't grow up or was taught or "brainwashed" as you morons might say for a certain ideology.
I formed it entirely on my own, because I was basically alone my entire life, raising myself (save the basic things obviously).
So, I've just debunked your judgment.... of the ideological sides.

3. Well, what you said about Transportation is the conservative view. Different types of transportation is required to service all classes of society, and create the best efficiency and success of that society.

4. Actually no..... Public transportation is capable of making a profit if managed properly. In fact, most City Bus's in most city's are privately contracted, bus company's actually operate the bus system under contract with the government.
As to "roads" or emergency services or national defence, those are in fact the key necessary functions of government, and in fact Conservative Ideology.
Most of the other functions of government that have continued to be added over the years, mostly by liberals, only make the country worse, not better.

Actually, the government used to work like that, that only the Rich paid taxes, while everyone else didn't including the middle class. This is conservative.
However, in liberal America, everyone but the very poor pay taxes. However, if single and you're very poor, and you work a job just slightly better than McDonalds, you also pay taxes.

5. Again, we are Conservatives, not Anarchists or Libertarians. We believe government has a necessary role to the public good, simply a very limited one.
And taxes Federally should be only paid by the Rich, and then everyone else pay's only local taxes in the form of "consumer tax"..... You're taxed for what you consume, i.e. what you buy. And neither Federal or local taxes should be more than 10%.

6. And the conservative balance is the most FREE, and FAIR, and PROSPEROUS..... for the society and the individual.
Libertarianism and expecially Anarchy isn't the best for such society because it creates more suffering.
The Progressive side, the Fascist side grows government instead of the individual, limits resources and the chance to improve life, etc.
All one has to do is look at the world..... and history. The most Capitalist and free country's are the most prosperous, the country's that focus more on government control and limiting freedoms are the least prosperous, and this is also due to corruption in government and the wealthy. Capitalist and free society's operate by the rule of law. Note how Obama and Holder have been doing everything they can to bypass the law as well as ignore it. Right now other than Amnesty, they are trying to ban AR-15 type rifles by Executive Order banning the 5.56 round, that the AR-15 shoots.

Also by Executive action/pressure, the FCC is taking over the internet.

So, I know what side and ideology's are best..... you clearly don't that you think that at least one of the ideology's isn't empirical, and isn't what is most best.
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro
_Bret Ripley
_Emeritus
Posts: 1542
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:53 am

Re: The 2nd Amendment...... for Musket's only? According to

Post by _Bret Ripley »

The Erotic Apologist wrote:Not that it matters, but the Revolutionary War saw the debut of the world's first practical and reliable breech-loading rifle:

Interesting -- I'd heard of the Ferguson, but didn't know much about it. Thanks!
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: The 2nd Amendment...... for Musket's only? According to

Post by _honorentheos »

The following are excerpts from the Supreme Court ruling in 2008, District of Columbia vs. Heller. The ruling was in regards to the 2nd Amendment and a Washington DC law that would have prohibited the ownership of handguns.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

The majority decision was authored by Justice Anthony Scalia, a well-recognized conservative voice on the bench. If anyone has an informed conservative view of the 2nd amendment and it's legal reach as well as limits, one would think it would be Justice Scalia.

(pg. 22) There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

(pg 48-49) JUSTICE STEVENS (my add - in the dissenting opinion) places overwhelming reliance upon this Court’s decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S.174 (1939).

...

And what is, according to JUSTICE STEVENS, the holding of Miller that demands such obeisance? That the Second Amendment “protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons.”

Nothing so clearly demonstrates the weakness of JUSTICE STEVENS’ case. Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that. The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for . . . military purposes” but for “nonmilitary use,” Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection (note, my emphasis added): “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [shortbarreled shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

...

(pg. 50) Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.

(pg. 52) We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”

(pg. 53) We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.

(pg. 54) Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.

(pg. 54) Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But 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 (pg. 56) 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.

(pg. 64) Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_MeDotOrg
_Emeritus
Posts: 4761
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:29 pm

Re: The 2nd Amendment...... for Musket's only? According to

Post by _MeDotOrg »

ldsfaqs wrote:I have spent my entire life being "empirical", understanding all sides, human behavior, to seek out the "true" and "best" way of both understanding and doing all things. My doing that since the age of 6 intentionally seeking wisdom, has resulted in me being on the right.


Okay. Empirically, here's what you said:

- Ideology's based on control by the state and forced confiscation and distribution in one form or another, limits freedoms from some to great.

Fascim
....Communism
........Socialism
............Mixed Breeds, Relativists, Can't decide or comprehend good vs evil, left from right, etc. lol
........Conservatism
....Libertarianism
Anarchy

- Ideology's based on Freedom, and the Individual Choice as the basis of society, less control of state, more control based on the individual and common law.


Sometimes I find it hard to concentrate in such a target-rich environment...

Let's just take the last part of the last sentence: more control based on the individual and common law.

Let's just take one aspect of common law: Progressive income tax, introduced by William Pitt the Younger in 1799. (Most conservatives want to blame the progressive income tax on Woodrow Wilson, but he was more than a century too late).

Now isn't a progressive tax (in your own words) forced confiscation and distribution in one form or another? And yet it is a part of English common law.

The other thing I would ask you is to look at the position of Anarchy on your scale. I can give you one example in the world today with an of anarchist form of government: Syria.

My contention is that in between the nightmarish extremes of Syria, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, there is a (relatively) happy middle.
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization."
- Will Durant
"We've kept more promises than we've even made"
- Donald Trump
"Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist."
- Edwin Land
_ldsfaqs
_Emeritus
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:41 pm

Re: The 2nd Amendment...... for Musket's only? According to

Post by _ldsfaqs »

MeDotOrg wrote:Sometimes I find it hard to concentrate in such a target-rich environment...

Let's just take the last part of the last sentence: more control based on the individual and common law.

Let's just take one aspect of common law: Progressive income tax, introduced by William Pitt the Younger in 1799. (Most conservatives want to blame the progressive income tax on Woodrow Wilson, but he was more than a century too late).

Now isn't a progressive tax (in your own words) forced confiscation and distribution in one form or another? And yet it is a part of English common law.

The other thing I would ask you is to look at the position of Anarchy on your scale. I can give you one example in the world today with an of anarchist form of government: Syria.

My contention is that in between the nightmarish extremes of Syria, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, there is a (relatively) happy middle.


1. Nothing I said is false, thus don't know what's so "target rich" about it.

2. Have no idea why you bring up "Britain" in this discussion. We are talking about America.
And when it comes to American Government, Wilson enabled into law the National Income tax.
William Pitt has nothing to do with America.....

However, let's point out some facts.
- William Pitt enacted more tax laws to gain revenue two times. Once to recover from the huge depts of the Revolutionary War (hey that's us honky), and the second time to recover from the French and Napolianic wars. Now, I don't know how widespread his taxes were, haven't studied it that much, but I will only say, that one can potentially find it reasonable that to pay off dept from war, that there is some increase of taxes in some areas. But, the conservative would only have this as temporary, and would've course to be very selective so as to no stifle rebuilding and growth of both the individual and business.
- When I mentioned "common law" I was simply speaking of basic "held in common" laws that everyone can agree on, things like punishment for murder, punishment for fraud, corruption, etc. Things that are most basic needed for a stable AND fair and equitable society, that allows people to be FREE with as little molestation as possible from the individual, government, business, thus the criminal minded of each area.

This is conservatism..... Freedom with only the most necessary laws to protect the individual and his freedom from those who might use freedom to abuse others.

3. As to "taxes"..... I believe only "Businesses" should pay an Income tax (Federally), and Individuals only pay a Consumption Tax (Locally) when purchasing items. Businesses are "public" services, thus should be taxed to serve the public national good, national emergency's, war, etc.. Goods are produced in a local way, thus individuals should pay taxes on purchased goods to support local government, thus public services on the local level.
All taxes at any level should be no more than 10%.
To show you how big government has grown, taking wealth from people, and spending it for themselves, only distributing a small portion of it, when this country was founded, all it's leaders believed that they would simply meet periodically, discuss some key issues, and live their lives otherwise. Instead, government has grown more and more.... and it's why Wilson and others started Individual Income tax, to take more and more, when it used to be just business that paid taxes federally, and then locally when they purchased things for the business.

4. If you think Syria is an "anarchist" form of government, you clearly don't know what Anarchy means.
Anarchy means little law for anything, people just doing what they want, it's just that, no order, no law, no structure, no organization, etc. It is the "extreme" of Freedom. Syria is a nation with it's own laws, dictator's, whatever. Certainly not "free" in any sense of the word.

5. Huh? Most country's are somewhere between Conservative and Communist. Very few total fascist or Anarchist. In fact, I don't even think there are any anarchist, but there are still a LOT of facist. There are also I don't think really any Libertarian. America's not even conservative anymore, with the liberals who have changed things so much since Wilson, but even more so the last 40 years. It's more in the middle now tossed to and fro between the extremes of good and evil trying to control this country. A couple of small country's might still be a little conservative, maybe South Korea, but not sure.... Lot of liberal ideology these days permiate basically all country's in various degrees. Most Capitalist country's have simply parts conservative these days, free markets still, some personal freedoms, with many limited, but with a lot of socialist and some communist ideology's/practices thrown in.

America became the greatest country in the world in our time because it was mostly conservative, since it's started becoming more liberal, it's losing it's greatness, becoming lower and less successful as other socialist/communist country's. Note how China impliments more conservative ideology's such as capitalism, it also starts to progress and become great. Why is North Korea pretty much crap hole compared with South Korea? Because of conservative ideology's, freedom, capitalism, etc.
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro
_canpakes
_Emeritus
Posts: 8541
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:54 am

Re: The 2nd Amendment...... for Musket's only? According to

Post by _canpakes »

ldsfaqs wrote:
canpakes wrote:Sorry, faqs, but you're fibbing again.

Unless you've been expending several thousand rounds via quality shooting time to polish your skill, then you are not going to be shooting your revolver faster than your semi-auto, especially when considering reloading. The level of proficiency that you claim is experienced by 'anyone' really happens only to well-practiced individuals. It is not the situation for the average owner.


Ugh..... the stupidity of liberals keeps going.

First of all, Revlolvers ARE in fact "semi-auto" weapons.
You pull the trigger as fast as you want, and they shoot as fast as the official "class" of semi-auto weapons.


Faqs, you said the following:

"Kevin is further stupid to not know that anyone that's used revolvers get as fast as those using sem-auto guns in shooting."

If revolvers are now semi-auto weapons, then why did you make the distinction between them and semi-automatic weapons?

ldsfaqs wrote:So, who's the liar again....?

You're still the one telling the fib. And now, you've proven yourself unable to man up to it after having that fib exposed.

And, please - no need to waste your keystrokes trying to explain about the functioning of 'revlolvers' and 'sem-autos'. You might be surprised to realize that there are plenty of us out here who are intimately familiar with the operation of both, and can spell them correctly, to boot. ; )
_ldsfaqs
_Emeritus
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:41 pm

Re: The 2nd Amendment...... for Musket's only? According to

Post by _ldsfaqs »

Can.....

You only show how utterly ignorant you are, that you can't comprehend what is actually said.
I clearly made the distinction that they ARE NOT the same, even in the post in which I initionally said they are similar.

You liberals/anti-mormons clearly show that you have no comprehension of language.
I was talking about TRIGGER PULL..... Revolvers and Semi-Auto's function exactly the same in trigger pull. It is a SEMI-AUTO function.
In other words, as I've already said, they shoot as fast as you pull the trigger..... That is the very BASE definition part of what makes a semi-auto, it's the firing of a round every time one pulls the trigger in contrast to full-auto which continues firing with one trigger pull. Semi-autos are only a separate class from revolvers because other things function different.

Revolvers [deleted] ALSO fire with each trigger pull (most).

It was claimed that revolvers don't shoot as fast as modern weapons including semi-autos, so I was debunking that clear liberal lie.

Further, you even more so show how you are an [deleted], because of a simple typing error, you LIE claiming a person doesn't know how to spell revolver, even though I've spelled it correctly every other time I've written the word.
So..... All you do, is show clearly the utter and complete moral and intellectual low class [deleted] you are.
Enjoy it..... [deleted].
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro
_canpakes
_Emeritus
Posts: 8541
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:54 am

Re: The 2nd Amendment...... for Musket's only? According to

Post by _canpakes »

ldsfaqs wrote:Can.....

You only show how utterly ignorant you are, that you can't comprehend what is actually said.
I clearly made the distinction that they ARE NOT the same, even in the post in which I initionally said they are similar.

Lol. You just said, "First of all, Revlolvers ARE in fact "semi-auto" weapons." Everything else after that defers to that statement.

Now you want to 'clarify' that.


ldsfaqs wrote:You liberals/anti-mormons clearly show that you have no comprehension of language.
I was talking about TRIGGER PULL..... Revolvers and Semi-Auto's function exactly the same in trigger pull. It is a SEMI-AUTO function.

It would seem to be a bit more complex than that, right? Your characterization only works if you want to backtrack into a definition of, "They're exactly the same in that I press on a trigger". Even then, this is woefully incomplete and inaccurate as regards differences in trigger action (as example, can you explain the DAK action of a Sig 229?). Trying to walk it back to mean that you're talking about 'trigger type' doesn't save you, either, given the theory that you're trying to advance.

You might as well try to claim that all handguns operate the same way and at the same speed in the user's hands because they all have a barrel. : )


ldsfaqs wrote:Revolvers [deleted] ALSO fire with each trigger pull (most).

Most pistol enthusiasts would modify your statement to read, "Semi-autos idiot ALSO fire with each trigger pull (most)". It would be a bit more accurate considering the misfire possibilities inherent in the design of either.

ldsfaqs wrote:It was claimed that revolvers don't shoot as fast as modern weapons including semi-autos, so I was debunking that clear liberal lie.

You haven't debunked anything, because they won't, when in possession of most any typical person. And they cannot be reloaded nearly as fast. Common revolvers, in a situation intended to inflict maximum public harm, would not have the same capacity to unleash the same amount of firepower within the same amount of time as most semi-automatic weapons using magazines. This is why most public firearms incidents involving an individual trying to generate the maximum number of casualties don't have the perp packing a .38 special with speed loaders. The perp makes a different choice, correct?

ldsfaqs wrote:Further, you even more so show how you are an [deleted], because of a simple typing error, you LIE claiming a person doesn't know how to spell revolver, even though I've spelled it correctly every other time I've written the word.

Blah, blah, blah. You got caught being highly inventive and manipulative with the 'facts' and now you want to act butthurt about my having fun with your spelling errors.

Please, don't cry on your weapon; it's not good for the finish.

ldsfaqs wrote:So..... All you do, is show clearly the utter and complete moral and intellectual low class [deleted] you are.

Image

At least I'm a 'piece of ship' that prefers a reliance on fact and truth.
_MeDotOrg
_Emeritus
Posts: 4761
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:29 pm

Re: The 2nd Amendment...... for Musket's only? According to

Post by _MeDotOrg »

Let's just take one aspect of common law: Progressive income tax, introduced by William Pitt the Younger in 1799. (Most conservatives want to blame the progressive income tax on Woodrow Wilson, but he was more than a century too late).

Now isn't a progressive tax (in your own words) forced confiscation and distribution in one form or another? And yet it is a part of English common law.

ldsfaqs wrote: Have no idea why you bring up "Britain" in this discussion. We are talking about America.
And when it comes to American Government, Wilson enabled into law the National Income tax.
William Pitt has nothing to do with America...

American common law was not created in a vacuum. It is derived from British common law. It is, in many ways, a continuum of British common law.

ldsfaqs wrote: When I mentioned "common law" I was simply speaking of basic "held in common" laws that everyone can agree on, things like punishment for murder, punishment for fraud, corruption, etc. Things that are most basic needed for a stable AND fair and equitable society, that allows people to be FREE with as little molestation as possible from the individual, government, business, thus the criminal minded of each area.

When you use a term like 'common law', how am I to know that you mean 'held in common" laws and not 'common law'? One of the frustrations of discussing things with you is that you put out a term like 'common law' and then limit its definition.

Common law is a lot larger than that. It is more than just positions with which you may or may not agree. It is a process:

wikipedia wrote:The common law (connotation 1) is more malleable than statutory law. First, common law courts are not absolutely bound by precedent, but can (when extraordinarily good reason is shown) reinterpret and revise the law, without legislative intervention, to adapt to new trends in political, legal and social philosophy. Second, the common law (connotation 1) evolves through a series of gradual steps, that gradually works out all the details, so that over a decade or more, the law can change substantially but without a sharp break, thereby reducing disruptive effects.

The process of evolving common law shows that it has some flexibility, with the ability to "adapt to new trends in political, legal and social philosophy". That sounds like a very pragmatic approach, the opposite of ideological intransigence.

ldsfaqs wrote:William Pitt enacted more tax laws to gain revenue two times. Once to recover from the huge depts of the Revolutionary War (hey that's us honky), and the second time to recover from the French and Napolianic wars. Now, I don't know how widespread his taxes were, haven't studied it that much, but I will only say, that one can potentially find it reasonable that to pay off dept from war, that there is some increase of taxes in some areas. But, the conservative would only have this as temporary, and would've course to be very selective so as to no stifle rebuilding and growth of both the individual and business.

Saying that Income tax is sometimes appropriate, depending on the situation is the kind of malleability and pragmatism is the direct opposite of ideological intransigence. In your own words, it does not comprehend left from right.

ldsfaqs wrote:To show you how big government has grown, taking wealth from people, and spending it for themselves, only distributing a small portion of it, when this country was founded, all it's leaders believed that they would simply meet periodically, discuss some key issues, and live their lives otherwise. Instead, government has grown more and more.... and it's why Wilson and others started Individual Income tax, to take more and more, when it used to be just business that paid taxes federally, and then locally when they purchased things for the business.

The whole 'simple government was better back in 1789' is, simply, a crock. It reminds me of the Amish dictum that if it doesn't exist in the Bible, we shouldn't use it. The amount of government we had in 1789 was appropriate for the complexity of our society in 1789.

We could operate efficiently with a government the size of the one we had in 1789. Just take away automobiles, trains, airplanes, radio, television, the internet, the mass manufacture of dangerous chemicals and drugs and revert to a horse-drawn agrarian society.

There's also a subtext that the men who founded our country over 200 years ago are better equipped to determine the complexity of our government than we are, or that the complexity of today's society wouldn't have any effect on the founding father's judgement as to how much government is appropriate. Again, a crock.

By the way, Woodrow Wilson was not the first President to institute a progressive Federal Income Tax. That would be the very first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln.

ldsfaqs wrote:If you think Syria is an "anarchist" form of government, you clearly don't know what Anarchy means. Anarchy means little law for anything, people just doing what they want, it's just that, no order, no law, no structure, no organization, etc. It is the "extreme" of Freedom. Syria is a nation with it's own laws, dictator's, whatever. Certainly not "free" in any sense of the word.


My tongue was in my cheek when I used the phrase 'anarchist form of government'. Anarchy is, by definition, the absence of government. That is the situation in Syria. What used to be referred to as 'the government', the Assad Regime, has been reduced to one of many factions fighting for control in a nation that is out of control. Rushing into that vacuum are the lust for power and violence from many factions.

Totalitarian governments have no faith in the goodness of their people, but Anarchy shows how people behave without government.

There is no simple formula for how much government is enough and how much government is too much. It depends on the size, complexity and needs of the society.

As the Buddha said, follow the middle path.

"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler." - Albert Einstein
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization."
- Will Durant
"We've kept more promises than we've even made"
- Donald Trump
"Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist."
- Edwin Land
Post Reply