Jump to content
I'm not trying to defend our elected officials. But as I posted above, our Declaration of Independence clearly points to government as a foundation for liberties and freedoms.
Be in control of your sporting reward.
Paddle the Yampa!
You cannot lose. :)
Mark, respect for government allows room to respect the individual.
You omit some words that make a difference.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Can you agree that government is necessary to deliver safety and happiness?
I do not read the Declaration as support for 100 men to rebel. "it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another". Again, through the Federalist Papers the founders consistently queue a state, at a minimum, as the proper resistor to tyranny. The treatment of the Shays Rebellion in 1786, seems emblematic of that position.
There are only individuals? "There ARE NO SUCH THINGS as ends of or actions by groups, collectives, or states"?
Except for example, the Declaration of Independence, which begins,
"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America"
Wherein the signors oft describe themselves and our new country as "We", choosing to emphasize We as a proper noun by capitalizing it: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Mark, that sentence presents Americans as part of some group, some collective, very much committed to each other rather than seeing men as individuals.
Scott, I don't believe this is about government being smarter, and I don't think our government is claiming to be smarter. To George's comment, this is about differing goals.
There are a few companies planning 10 years out. I'm not saying that is a fault. It fits the nature of profit taking. On the other hand, nearly every municipality in the U.S. is planning 10 and some, 20 years out. A company being smart will reach a very different strategy than a municipality being smart. So comparing who is smarter requires two different grading metrics, one for each.
That being said, business will win "smarter" almost every time. Putting maximum cash in your pocket is much simpler than growing the best town. Also, easier to be right about the next quarter than right about 10 years from now. Obviously, government does have the luxury of planning only for the next quarter.
I like your NBA posts. Not even my sport, but a good reminder we are shucking peanuts here.
I would stand a chance at the shell game if we weighed the environmental impacts. Fossil fuels have the subsidy of harm un-costed. Put Iraq in the CPA's hands and those gallons cost a lot more.
The populace understands what the free market cannot see.
Profit is hands down the single most easily understood and efficient organizing principle on the face of the planet. At the same time the profit principle is, for example, blind to the mercury and CO2 sent into our environment by coal power plants. Increasingly, it is blind to the needs of the 4th quarter, ten years out. We plan to be here for another 200 years. No?
Balance is required. The scrubbers on the Hayden powerplant were fought by the free market. Balance won. Does anyone seriously argue those scrubbers should never have been placed? A clean place to live is indeed good "economics".
It's true. The gun legislation in Congress is not our largest concern. I do have an interest in how civilian guns respond to tyranny - I don't understand that. Some comment about Hitler and a police state in America. For that end of the gun argument, the Patriot Act and strong Republican support for it, should matter. One might hope.
I keep reading Federalist Papers that consistently see states acting against tyranny. I've yet to read a founder describing the right of 100 men to armed revolt against our government. Maybe someone can provide such writing from a participant to our constitution.
Regardless of the 2001 vote, the Patriot Act was a conservative creation. Att General John Ashcroft was the force behind the extent of law.
Since 2001 I decided it was smarter to be engaged before a vote, so I've participated in each Routt and Colorado Dem platform. These seek repeal of the Patriot Act. The 2010 Colorado Dem Platform: "We support the affirmation of the importance of civil liberties contained in our Bill of Rights and demand repeal of the USA Patriot Act and subsequent enhancements thereto which permit non-judicial abrogation of Constitutional rights of citizens or non-citizens of the United States." Senator Udall seems to have heard us.
I could only find the 2012 for Routt Dems, but our other years say roughly the same: "We support repeal of the U.S. Patriot Act, particularly invasions of privacy such as warrantless searches and seizures, roving wiretaps and searches of business and library records. Similarly, we support revisions to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), which would delete the destructive detainee provisions contained in that law."
I tried, but could not find any County or State Republican party positions or platforms related to the Patriot Act or NDAA. The extensions of the Patriot Act have far more support from Republican congressmen, but it seems worth noting that Rand Paul opposes it. Democrats are moving away from it.
What is your view of the Patriot Act?
Last login: Friday, June 14, 2013
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.