0
dmcoco84

DEFINED: Small and Limited Government

Recommended Posts

Quote

Rather than continuing to play guessing games with people, try this; if you have something to say, SAY IT.



My thought, exactly.

I'm done with this thread, until it gets off of the kiddie track.
"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Defined: The Pursuit of Happiness.

Or... can you tell me the second definition of the word, happiness.



A quick straw poll of online dictionaries has some variation of "Luck or good fortune" edging into the lead.

Not exactly sure how that relates to your premise, but anyway: you have 60 seconds to talk about The Pursuit of Good Fortune without repetition, hesitation or deviation - Go.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Defined: The Pursuit of Happiness.

Or... can you tell me the second definition of the word, happiness.



A quick straw poll of online dictionaries has some variation of "Luck or good fortune" edging into the lead.

Not exactly sure how that relates to your premise, but anyway: you have 60 seconds to talk about The Pursuit of Good Fortune without repetition, hesitation or deviation - Go.



I doubt he can get the answer from Ron Paul in 60 seconds.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Defined: The Pursuit of Happiness.

Or... can you tell me the second definition of the word, happiness.



A quick straw poll of online dictionaries has some variation of "Luck or good fortune" edging into the lead.


Quote

Do I get a passing grade



Jakee does :)
Not an A, only because there is juuust a bit more to it than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

How would you define a, Theist?



The way a dictionary does. A person that believes in a god.



Well, thefreedictionary.com says:
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

Einstein believed in God, but not a personal God.

Was he a theist too?

sp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's pretty cool.

Thread opens up with a discussion about how state's rights and individualism was established as the primary purpose of the US model. This required a VERY small federal government which was only needed to cover the bare minimums of how the collection of states would join forces solely for dealing with foreign powers, and the ability to live and move freely between those states so people had the choice to live under the political structure or their choosing.

Neat, the US wasn't a great political experiment - it was a BUNCH of potential political experiments.

It pretty fell prey to ANOTHER religion bash/defend thread (granted, the god references weren't really necessary to premise of the discussion. even if they were the basis in the founders culture, they aren't applicable now). D - You should have known the kneejerk reaction to the posting structure would have derailed your original intent.

Thank goodness - we need more religion threads that go nowhere new.

Oh, and of course the simplistic collectivist comments found in the introductory booklets handed out to those that don't think for themselves are at least minimal this time.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Thread opens up with a discussion about how state's rights and individualism was established as the primary purpose of the US model.



This is a Natural Law thread... if that's what you got from what I wrote, you need to read it again.

Quote

This required a VERY small federal government which was only needed to cover the bare minimums



Correction: Needed ---> Wanted

They feared central government. The Founders wanted as much power as possible in the localities. The Articles of Confederation gave ALL the power to the states... it failed.

It was too weak, too close to Anarchy.

Total Government --------Progressivism----------------------Republic-------AOC------ Anarchy
Communism
Nazism
Maoism
Stalinism

Total control vs. Anarchy

Democrat and Republican - Left and Right - - - - IS FAKE

John McCain vs Obama..... Bud Light vs Budweiser

A little less Big Bloated Government vs. Big Bloated Government.

********* D
TG ---Progressive-----------R-----AOC--- Anarchy
********* R

Pretty Simple... We have a one party system.

Quote

Neat, the US wasn't a great political experiment - it was a BUNCH of potential political experiments.



Shrug... Shrug... ok, lol.

Quote

even if they were the basis in the founders culture, they aren't applicable now).



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

Quote

D - You should have known the kneejerk reaction to the posting structure would have derailed your original intent.



Kneejerk? No... I expected liberal/progressive revisionism.

Wilson's father was a preacher. He knew the only way to "Progress Past" the constitution was to separate the people from God, from our Founding principles, and from the truth about the Founders.

Progressive... what are you progressing to?

How do you progress past, "All men are created equal."

Remember what I said: Frederick Douglas called the DOI and the Constitution, after he ACTUALLY read it... an Anti Slavery Document.

Quote

Thank goodness - we need more religion threads that go nowhere new.



It's not my fault that people consistently are unable to separate religion and God.

Noooo, we have made a lot of PROGRESS, in this thread. :P

I can't wait to get to the "religion of America"

Damn responsibilities getting in the way of my history talks. >:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Thread opens up with a discussion about how state's rights and individualism was established as the primary purpose of the US model. This required a VERY small federal government which was only needed to cover the bare minimums of how the collection of states would join forces solely for dealing with foreign powers, and the ability to live and move freely between those states so people had the choice to live under the political structure or their choosing.

Neat, the US wasn't a great political experiment - it was a BUNCH of potential political experiments.

It pretty fell prey to ANOTHER religion bash/defend thread



Highly selective reading there, dude. The original post contained at least as much, if not more, about the role of God in Government as it did about States Vs Feds. It didn't fall prey to being another religion thread, it began as one*. Why do you think Ron was the second responder?;)


(* Especially when you consider Coco's posting history ref: God, rights, religion of America etc.)
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Highly selective reading there, dude.



Yeah, we're good at that. :P

But still, it's more useful to try and take something worth talking about out of it.

and, if you see dmcocomo's response to this selective reading post of mine, he's pretty much insisting as well on the god-spin couched as 'natural law' too - so y'all are right on target.

my bad for trying to get something useful out of it - and that selective reading post was pretty much a jab at you guys and d'coco for falling into your corners from the get go instead of modifying to a decent discussion (not just at you guys - he started the goofy path)



See - I like to take the founding father's religious take as just their personal rationalization of what they REALLY wanted - Individual and state's rights trumping a giant federal control structure (which they rightly feared). And then just start with that as the real foundation and intent. And forget how they fooled themselves into getting to a pretty good starting point.

You see, they were pretty sophisticated, and they knew that just stating a political philosophy would deliver flat on the uneducated populace - but, mix in a little religion, and that's pretty much akin to giving strong medicine mixed in with a little jelly. That's practical and aligns with the fact the the FF also had a mix of STRONGLY christian with agnostic and atheistic individuals in the ranks (yet they seemed just fine in handling those differences to get job done).

Then we can contrast that intent with what really happened and with what's happening lately as failure to that excellent concept.

but that's just silly

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

my bad for trying to get something useful out of it - and that selective reading post was pretty much a jab at you guys and d'coco for falling into your corners from the get go instead of modifying to a decent discussion (not just at you guys - he started the goofy path)



Fair point, I guess (although there's really no chance of getting a useful discussion out of Coco himself - especially when we're having to guess his side of it).

Quote

See - I like to take the founding father's religious take as just their personal rationalization of what they REALLY wanted - Individual and state's rights trumping a giant federal control structure (which they rightly feared). And then just start with that as the real foundation and intent. And forget how they fooled themselves into getting to a pretty good starting point.



Agreed. Their personal religious convictions, either way, really don't matter at all. What's in the Constitution is what's in the Constitution.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You two are being far too reasonable. You must immediately cease and desist posting to this thread and move over to the "drawing a line in the sand" thread.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with your conclusion, but not with how you got there.

First off, the Declaration of Independence was written BEFORE there was a USA.

Second, it was written primarily by THOMAS JEFFERSON. This is the DEIST talking. It wasn't meant so much as a commentary on religion as a commentary on the English system of rule. The king claimed a divine right to rule. The declaration basically challenged the king to prove it. Even if you buy that the bulk of the founding fathers were Christian, which is certainly open to debate, Jefferson's religious points of view are very well documented, as he placed the divine conception of Jesus in the same category as Minerva springing from the brain of Jupiter [citation: Letter to John Adams (April 11, 1823)], though he did certainly acknowledge the value Jesus' moral teachings.

Third, the founding fathers knew that the Articles were a mess and they were never intended as a permanent document. That's why, after several attempts to rewrite them, they chucked the whole thing and started over.

So, moving on, the Constitution certainly encourages small Federal government. The Federal government is allowed to do certain SPECIFIC things that are listed in the Constitution. If they're not listed, they're not allowed. Unfortunately, in recent years, if a dollar changes hands, they slap a label of "interstate commerce" on it and call it "commerce clause" however inaccurate that may be.

Is the Federal government regulating health care, drugs, etc? absolutely. Should they be doing so without a constitutional amendment? absolutely not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

In your view, anyone who does not accept your god is wrong. That alone demonstrates your ability to close your mind to new ideas.



My God?

I am simply stating the Founding Principles of our Nation which is structured through Natural Law and recognition of, "a Creator" .... Nowhere did I give any interpretation of God. (Religion)



This.

Except The Creator can also be called, and I believe that The Creator was referred to by the founding fathers as "The great Architect of the Universe".



That is taken directly from Masonic ritual.



Good - so you agree that the idea was at least partly responsible for how the DOI was written.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm not playing word games... Jefferson believed in God. He was not religious.

I don't need terms. Call him a zipitydooda-ist... Whatever, he believed in God.



Like I said, Jefferson's views are well documented by his own hand, and therefore it isn't necessary for me to restate them here when he did an admirable job of that himself. However, whether he did or didn't believe personally isn't relevant to his point in the Declaration of Independence that the King of England wasn't divinely appointed to rule the colonies. Jefferson wasn't trying to make a religious statement. He was trying to make a political point that the King wasn't any better than anybody else, had no divine entity backing his rule, and if he thought there was, he'd better get his army over here and prove it. Since the King claimed divine backing, using religious rhetoric was the best way to make the point, and Jefferson understood that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm not playing word games... Jefferson believed in God. He was not religious.

I don't need terms. Call him a zipitydooda-ist... Whatever, he believed in God.



He believed in "A" God, to be sure.

It is disputed, but I believe that Jefferson was a Freemason.

Which would make his Diety, The Grand Architect of the Universe.

This is consistent with with his relations with Washington, Monroe, and Madison.

The dispute however, comes from his open aversion to secret societies.

Many of the founding fathers were Freemasons. Their input into the founding documents and the beliefs that helped form them seem to be more consistent with the Freemason theory than not.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

First off, the Declaration of Independence was written BEFORE there was a USA.



"puzzled"

Are you saying, that I said it was the other way around?

Quote

It wasn't meant so much as a commentary on religion as a commentary on the English system of rule. The king claimed a divine right to rule. The declaration basically challenged the king to prove it.



Same thing Quade said... incorrect.

Quote

Jefferson's religious points of view are very well documented, as he placed the divine conception of Jesus in the same category as Minerva springing from the brain of Jupiter [citation: Letter to John Adams (April 11, 1823)], though he did certainly acknowledge the value Jesus' moral teachings.



Personally, I'm not sure if Jesus even Existed... let alone is a savior.

I believe in God... so did Jefferson. The simple principle that there is some form of a creator.

Hence... Natural Law applies. Whether its a Personal God (able to intervene) or Clock Maker God. Our life comes from God.

Quote

Third, the founding fathers knew that the Articles were a mess and they were never intended as a permanent document. That's why, after several attempts to rewrite them, they chucked the whole thing and started over.



Never heard that one before... Can't agree or disagree, at the moment.

Quote

So, moving on, the Constitution certainly encourages small Federal government. The Federal government is allowed to do certain SPECIFIC things that are listed in the Constitution. If they're not listed, they're not allowed. Unfortunately, in recent years, if a dollar changes hands, they slap a label of "interstate commerce" on it and call it "commerce clause" however inaccurate that may be.



Which started with FDR and one very specific court case, over Wheat, that if overturned, would destroy the Federal Governments continued abuses of the Commerce Clause.

Quote

Is the Federal government regulating health care, drugs, etc? absolutely. Should they be doing so without a constitutional amendment? absolutely not.



What? They should be, WITHOUT, a constitutional amendment?

So then why did they need an amendment to ban alcohol? Alcohol is 100%, a drug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It's pretty cool.

Thread opens up with a discussion about how state's rights and individualism was established as the primary purpose of the US model.....



Finally!
Somebody breathing oxygen instead of methane.
Thank you Rehmwa.

They can't talk political systems without playing the religion card can they?
:D:D:D:D

"Oh but the DOI mentions God!"
So fucking what. You'd negate the entire concept of a governmental system because it mentions a God? Because it didn't mention YOUR personal God or lack thereof?
:D:D:D:D
*W H O O S H*

Some of you appear to be laying on the floor kicking your feet, pounding your fists and screaming.

For God's sake (yes, that was intentional) address the idea of small g'ment (which was originally intended) vs what we have today. Isn't that closer to the OPs topic? I think he was simply denoting the difference between alienable and inalienable. The FF are the ones that threw God in there...so what?

Are you going to carry your PC crap all the way back to the late 1700s? Shouldn't they get grandfathered in somehow?

Me? I think the federal g'ment is out of control. We are no longer the "home of the free" as much as we like to think.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Quote

Is the Federal government regulating health care, drugs, etc? absolutely. Should they be doing so without a constitutional amendment? absolutely not.



What? They should be, WITHOUT, a constitutional amendment?

So then why did they need an amendment to ban alcohol? Alcohol is 100%, a drug.



You need to work on your reading comprehension. I asked if the government should be regulating health care and drugs without a constitutional amendment, and answered "Absolutely NOT". Therefore, they WOULD need an amendment to ban alcohol, which they knew back when they did it, which is why they passed an amendment to do it.


And as for your mystery documents, I think you're probably hinting at "Two Treatises of Government" by John Locke. Admittedly, Jefferson was a fan. However, Jefferson being a fan of Locke does not exclude Jefferson using the argument of men being created equal as a tool of rhetoric to piss off the King of England. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Ultimately, the point is that the purpose of the DOI was not to make a commentary on the nature of God and humanity. It was to get the English bloody mad, and attacking the god-given right of the king to rule was the best way to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woops... yea, ya got me. I looked back at it and saw the first absolutely, accidentally.

My bad.

Quote

"Two Treatises of Government"



THANK YOU!

For fucks sake!

If you type... "what influenced the DOI"... into Google, its the first fucking result!

NIGHTINGALE for President! :)
Agreed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0