Abortion

[angelofdeath]

Actually' date=' the problem with people like YOU is that you honestly beleive this horse shit. Every "republican" I've ever talked to spouts the same exact line as you, all this... [/quote']

 

yeah i guess your right. its a shame when someone believes in the document that created america. the document of secession from a tyrannical power. and yes im such a Republican. you got me there... no Republican is calling for total abolition of 70% of the federal government are they? Republicans in the 109th congress have spent more damn money than any democrat in history. im a Republican just like thomas jefferson, james madison and patrick henry were republicans. small 'r' republicans which really is the classical liberal tradition.

 

 

 

"... But then you motherfuckers turn around and vote for the exact opposite of what you supposedly stand for! You turn around and endorse motherfucking Republicans whose whole agenda is eliminating the very liberties, freedoms, and right to property that you supposedly value! "

 

im sorry but hardly any neo conservative republicans believe in anything I am saying. they are more aligned with leftists than the old right or libertarians.

 

 

 

"It takes alot of restraint not to grab a motherfucker by the shirt and smack the shit out of him when I hear them spout this nonsense while trying to explain why they voted for a motherfucker like Bush...<i> or why they oppose a womans right to abortion.</i>"

 

this is just so laughable because you are so selective in your ideology. you dont want the government in your business, but im sure you have no qualms at all about the government having its hand in all manners of the economy, healthcare, handouts and subsidies, foreign aid. i want separation of not just church and state, but SOCIETY and state.

 

 

you see, with your rhetoric, you are missing alot of real facts. take for instance the 14th amendment, with out it, you wouldnt have the abuse of the constitution that is the roe decision. this same horribly worded amendment, INTENDED soley to give free slaves rights, is now being used to a right to abortion protected by the constitution. im sure you'll be denoucing this horrible amendment when i tell you it is the same amendment that gave corporation's rights just like people.

 

you make a good point about a fetus being the private property of the mother. do you consider slaves to be the private property of slave owners? do you really believe in absolute private property rights? being as selective as you are in your remarks, (like a typical party line leftist as i see it as of now) i doubt you do. i consider laws protecting life, as in laws against murder, whether it be of a real living human, or a baby, to be just. if anyone, including the government, violates our natural rights, they are committing an injustice. a right of the government to decide which rights they want to protect, is the right of the government to decide WHO has those rights. now, with the traditional system of american federalism, as established by the 10th amendment, it is up to the individual states to decide this issue. no where in the constitution is there any mention of any social issues that the federal government is to protect. the bulk of the governing was to be done by local and state governments out of fear of centralized political power. with this system, it allows the people of say maine to have the right of a woman to kill her child protected. in tennessee, if they want to protect the child from being murdered, they can do that. the fallacy of Roe, is that the feds have no JURISDICTION to even talk about abortion.

 

as one of my political hero's ron paul points out so eloquently:

 

"Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder...

 

 

A case in point is a young libertarian leader I have heard about. He supports the "right" of a woman to remove an unwanted child from her body (i.e., her property) by killing and then expelling him or her. Therefore, he has consistently concluded, any property owner has the right to kill anyone on his property, for any reason.

 

Such conclusions should make libertarians question the premises from which they are drawn.

 

We must promote a consistent vision of liberty because freedom is whole and cannot be alienated, although it can be abridged by the unjust action of the State or those who are powerful enough to obtain their own demands. Our lives, also, are a whole from the beginning at fertilization until death. To deny any part of liberty, or to deny liberty to any particular class of individuals, diminishes the freedom of all. For libertarians to support such an abridgement of the right to live free is unconscionable."

[--->]

yeah i guess your right. its a shame when someone believes in the document that created america. the document of secession from a tyrannical power. and yes im such a Republican. you got me there... no Republican is calling for total abolition of 70% of the federal government are they? Republicans in the 109th congress have spent more damn money than any democrat in history. im a Republican just like thomas jefferson, james madison and patrick henry were republicans. small 'r' republicans which really is the classical liberal tradition.

 

 

Nah homie, you missed my point. I beleive in the Constitution and Bill of Rights more than anybody I know. I'm 100% against the opressive, overbareing police state that my beloved country has become. I was just calling you a hipocrite.

[fermentor666]

Oh, that's right, I remember who you are now. I stopped reading after you called me a socialist. I would say that I didn't label you by some political party, but then again I did call you an asshole. I remember you throwing that shit around once before and I though I had put you on my ignore list, whatever. Are you from the vintagesynth forums? Because I remember a couple of assholes just like you who would run around calling everyone who disagreed with them a liberal or a socialist. I'm not gonna bother, anyone who claims that the average American pays 60% of their income into taxes clearly has their head up their ass. I'm not naive, btw, but nice try.

[--->]

 

"It takes alot of restraint not to grab a motherfucker by the shirt and smack the shit out of him when I hear them spout this nonsense while trying to explain why they voted for a motherfucker like Bush...<i> or why they oppose a womans right to abortion.</i>"

 

this is just so laughable because you are so selective in your ideology. you dont want the government in your business, but im sure you have no qualms at all about the government having its hand in all manners of the economy, healthcare, handouts and subsidies, foreign aid. i want separation of not just church and state, but SOCIETY and state.

 

No, What I said is that if you're going to rail against the government for taxation for welfare and other things of societal value, then don't turn around and suport a government intrusion on a persons personal buisiness to abort giving birth. And while you're at it don't all of a sudden support us being taxed for police forces and prisons and more laws to fill those prisons and more cops to enforece all these laws, and to pay for foreign wars. Espescially when we weren't even attacked by the people our tax dollars are paying to bomb to begin with.

[fermentor666]

And that's why I like Dawood, because even if he disagrees with you on a polar opposites level, he doesn't go out and call people Liberals or Catholics or Socialists.

[--->]

you see' date=' with your rhetoric, you are missing alot of real facts. take for instance the 14th amendment, with out it, you wouldnt have the abuse of the constitution that is the roe decision. this same horribly worded amendment, INTENDED soley to give free slaves rights, is now being used to a right to abortion protected by the constitution. im sure you'll be denoucing this horrible amendment when i tell you it is the same amendment that gave corporation's rights just like people. [/quote']

 

 

Not sure which amendment that is, but the republicans aren't gonna stop untill the entire Consitution and Bill of rights is thrown out.

[--->]

you make a good point about a fetus being the private property of the mother. do you consider slaves to be the private property of slave owners?

 

That's just retarded. Are you retarded? A slave is a person. A fully developed person that more than likely never was a part of the owners body.

A fetus is a part of the body. It's no more a person than a turd churning its way through the intestines... or a tumor growing in a womans breast. It's undeveloped. It's not even a person yet.

[--->]

The rest of your post is so retardedly backwards that I'm not even going to waste my time on it.

Like I said you need to re-evaluate what you think your stance on freedom, liberty, property ownership, the role of the government and what it should be, and our constitutional rights are... because you claim one thing then turn around and rail against it. Basically everything you claim to beleive in is completely backwards from what you support.

[Dawood]

Yeah, because that is obviously a logical extention to what I said.

No, I'm saying that on account of the fact that it really isn't a kid yet, mothers should be able to make the descision as to whether or not a pregnancy should be terminated.

 

The only thing that I could really bring to the table in the discussion past that is that I think fathers get completely fucked over in the process. They should have more say in determining the future of the hypothetical child, because they are legally bound to it for the next 18 years. Of couse the issue of it being in some woman's belly complicates things....

 

I love those pictures that started the page. Great for their intended purpose, showing that the developing human fetus (gasp) actually looks like a human.

But just a little while ago that thing looked like a little salamander with a pig nose.

 

 

ha, ok, just checking..

[Dawood]

Sigh. Which would you rather have, an aborted fetus or a crackbaby? An aborted fetus or an inbreed child born of sexual abuse on a minor? An aborted fetus or three kids born to a prostitute living below the poverty line?

 

.

 

 

that's a special case, crackbabys and inbred sexual abuse children are clearly (at least to me) special cases, but the origin of the matter should still return to not killing kids, no?

[Dawood]

And that's why I like Dawood' date=' because even if he disagrees with you on a polar opposites level, he doesn't go out and call people Liberals or Catholics or Socialists.[/quote']

 

dood, you know youre a socialist, kid:D

[the.crooked]

i believe, as the declaration of independence points out, that humans, all have natural rights and that the only true legitimate function of government is to secure those rights. these rights are from the lockean principles of life, liberty and property. i believe in decentralized laws to protect life, which include anti abortion laws. i also believe in limited government. protection of life is a legitimate function of the State. i see no government 'intrusion' in telling a woman she cant kill her child.

 

you see the problem with folks like you, is that you simply cant understand decentralized government and ordered liberty. you feel that the central state is the only legitimate way of helping the poor, as well as EVERY OTHER task in our live, except bedroom behavior and passing laws interferring with free speech. however, the truth is that getting into our private lives is what you get when you centralize power and give more power to the government than it is supposed to have. that same powerful central state that can give you everything you want, WILL TAKE EVERYTHING YOU HAVE. i dont think i really need to add, but history is in my corner on this debate.

 

 

I think we full well understand decentralization. And I think anyone who has read, Locke, Rousseau, Mill, etc understands the ideals you proclaim to champion. It is moving beyond the ideal capacity of those principles to their functional and real application that we have done, that I think you have not. OR, in so much as those ideals have failed in their application, that we seek to move beyond that and find a solution.

 

It's not an issue of decentralization. Is any legislation being introduced even, that would work towards that goal? Is there anything within the constructs of our current governmental structure and procedure that would cause you to believe that what you would like as far as the size and focus of power in our government will change? When was the last time we saw a decrease in the size of the federal government? It sure as fuck hasn't been in the last six years, which have seen the single largest increase in governmental capacity and size under any one president.

 

The ideals and issues we express (or at least myself and i think arrow, fermentor and to a point smart) are towards the realization of a solution for any given social issue under the parameters of our contemporary and real government and society, not what we would ideally like it to be.

 

Specfically, Fermentors comment that anyone who believes in pro-life should be giving to charity whole heartedly. And your response that you do, in the form of taxes. Well my friend your taking the high road that doesn't exist. Yes you may pay that much in taxes, but does that go specifically and effectively to those social initiatives by which you seem to think exclude the necessity of further help for those less fortunate? No. We all know that beyond earmarking, corruption, ineffeciency in the way our government spends, etc that the funds we believe are appropriated for any given thing, are not exactly used that way. Soooo, what would be a solution to this quandry? Perhaps, as fermentor suggested, giving money to a program wich has a specific aim. One that is transparent enough that the process by which your money directly affects any given issue is observable. So that you, as a person concerned with the effective use of your "donation," can monitor its use to your liking. Such as Warren Buffet's stipulation that in the donation of his monies, each specific annual gift must be used that fiscal year.

 

You say that we have no responsibility but to ourselves. Yet you then claim that the government has a responsibility to protect the right to life of its citizens. Contradiction. We, as the supporters and denizens of the government, are by default, also responsible for protecting that fellow right to life of said citizens. I am not speaking about abortion, I'm speaking about social initiatives which from the gist of your posts I feel you don't believe in. We are not in man's natural state, we do not seek to only justify our own ends. We are in a contract, as your beloved Locke would have it. We, by birth and action, signify that we accept the inherit structure and goings on of that contract. Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, et all, believed that we have a natural state. In that state, we were at odds with eachother, at war, to use their term. But when that contract is enacted you cease to be at odds unless some further infraction upon your right to life or property has occured. But I believe inherit to that concept, is the mutual upholding of that right. Therefor, if there are those who are citizens under our current contract who's right to life is obstructed by social, institutionalized, or other means, we as signees to said contract are responsible to act against that obstruction.

 

 

Just my thoughts on the current discussion.

[Smart]

The ideals and issues we express (or at least myself and i think arrow, fermentor and to a point smart) are towards the realization of a solution for any given social issue under the parameters of our contemporary and real government and society, not what we would ideally like it to be.

 

thumbs up

[the.crooked]

goddamn edit time limit. spelling errors not corrected, forgive me please.

[Dawood]

Originally Posted by the.crooked

The ideals and issues we express (or at least myself and i think arrow, fermentor and to a point smart) are towards the realization of a solution for any given social issue under the parameters of our contemporary and real government and society, not what we would ideally like it to be.

 

 

I like how you worded that, and I'm glad you left me out of the list of people who try to realize a solution for social issues under parameters of contemporary mumbo jumbo.

No, really, that was put well. I liked that. It made me realize why I would never go to the beach and shovel sand into the sea.

[El Mamerro]

Crooked's last paragraph is the fucking biz right there.

[fermentor666]

that's a special case' date=' crackbabys and inbred sexual abuse children are clearly (at least to me) special cases, but the origin of the matter should still return to not killing kids, no?[/quote']

 

 

Yes, that's something that I agree with, at least the first part. However, the laws that are currently in effect in South Dakota and are in legislation in other states prohibit abortion in even those circumstances. God forbid anyone takes my stance as "abortions for everyone, let's slaughter some fetuses!", although my crust-punk-metal side would love it. I DO think that there should be large efforts to promote birth control (condoms, the pill, dental dams, whatever) and to encourage but not enforce abstinence. By abstinence, I don't mean "no sex till marriage", but I mean don't whore yourself around and get 10 abortions.

 

But, people need to understand that we are human but we are also animals, mistakes happen. Not every teenager has their head on straight enough to understand that "pulling out" is not an effective method of birth control, especially when you're talking about a 16 year old guy who probably nuts within the first 10 seconds. And sexual education should continue past 6th grade, which is the only time that I had it. America DOES have a problem in terms of SLUTS and that's something that needs to be attacked culturally (MTV, Myspace), but not in a way that suppresses it. This country has a bad history of suppressing cultural movements and attitudes instead of addressing them. Banning abortion is NOT going to stop kids from having premarital sex and getting pregnant. What it's going to do is A) force kids on unwed teenagers who won't be able to teach the child morality, and B) push abortion procedures into backrooms where there will be more than just a fetus that dies.

 

Rambling, but so is everything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, angelofdeath, it just hit me! Your charitable donations to community daycares and vaccination clinics and such can make SURE that your taxes go towards the right things, Since donations can be written off your taxes. So what the fuck are you waiting for?

[fermentor666]

And I should relate a story of two friends of mine. He dated this girl for a little over a year and got her pregnant somehow, they fucked a lot. She had an abortion and it did make her depressed for a little while afterwards. They broke up and had occasional flings. And eventually he got her pregnant again. And she had another abortion. It did not make her happy.

 

 

But, if they had a kid, let me tell you something. Both of them use cocaine, smoke massive amounts of weed and drink at least 6+ beers a day, on weekends nearly a whole 30-rack each. Now he's in school, at least he was when I last talked to him a year ago, but from what I hear he's still doing drugs and drinking. She's quit the coke, but still smokes and drinks a fair amount while working 3 jobs. She got into a car accident and had her liscence taken away and plates stripped. So now, tell me what kind of life that kid would have had?

[angelofdeath]

"You say that we have no responsibility but to ourselves. Yet you then claim that the government has a responsibility to protect the right to life of its citizens. Contradiction"

 

its not at all. the founders vision of legitimate government are protection of life, liberty and estate. if the founders thought a welfare state was necessary to protect individuals 'right to life' then obviously, one would of been instituted immediately. please point out where a social safety net is enumerated... i'd love to see it.

 

see you follow a total jacobin ideology, i dont. i despise rousseau. i follow the american revolutionary trend. when the revolution was over, it was over, unlike the french revolution, which tried to erase all traces of any tradition. i would love to get into this, but its passed my bed time.

i would like to add briefly that if you are trying to find some way to twist the jeffersonian tradtion into some sort of defense for the welfare state, you are just plain dead wrong.

 

the reason why i made it a point to point out that the government is robbing us by taxation, and it is hardly fixing anything was to show that your system of forced charity indeed ISNT doing a good job. it is time for everyone to examine what role you really want the government to play in your lives. with this immoral welfare state in place, the people get disgusted at what the government is doing, it the incentives all change. instead of giving that beggar a dollar, you simply ask him to go to the state to see about it, because they took the dollar to give to him already.

 

"he ideals and issues we express (or at least myself and i think arrow, fermentor and to a point smart) are towards the realization of a solution for any given social issue under the parameters of our contemporary and real government and society, not what we would ideally like it to be."

 

while you get props for making this sound cool.. i find that a radical school of thought is what is needed in today's political arena. i would rather stand for what is right, then go along with the republicrats in power. this way of thinking, is what got us in the mess we are in today, in my opinion.

[fermentor666]

So what is a "radical school of thought"? Eliminate taxes, the poor, and abortion and get SUVs? As if that would get us out of "the mess we are in today" more than FINDING A SOLUTION WITHIN THE BOUNDRIES OF OUR CONSTITUTION??? Dude! Get out of my fucking country!

[angelofdeath]

"And, angelofdeath, it just hit me! Your charitable donations to community daycares and vaccination clinics and such can make SURE that your taxes go towards the right things, Since donations can be written off your taxes. So what the fuck are you waiting for?"

 

sure thing buddy, abolish the welfare state, and you will simply not believe the level of private charity that will flow in. i know you love coercion and keeping that non intrusive government in charge of telling everyone what to do, but........

[angelofdeath]

"FINDING A SOLUTION WITHIN THE BOUNDRIES OF OUR CONSTITUTION???"

 

haha, well, this is the idea. i guess actually im not radical. well to you i am, but actually, im super conservative in the fact that i want the constitution preserved. its funny you said a solution within the boundaries of the constitution, because every solution you support IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

[the.crooked]

Again man, such a staunch staunch literal interpretation of the constitution. I fail to believe that the constitution in your reading can account for the sheer amount of people it now governs.

 

But like i said, I don't exactly think we disagree. As much as I would like to believe and think about doing the "right thing." I'd much rather try and help those that I can, now. I do give money to people on the street, rather regularly. I think that if one wants to think in a larger capacity for change, they must enact it in a small way.

 

 

And, I am sorry, but I think it is rediculous to try and read the constitution as an all knowing and non living document. How can you say that the founders would have written a welfare state if they wanted that way. Do you think that they had the foresight to account for the volume and depth of society as it is now? THere is a reason we say the past was a simpler time. It was.

[angelofdeath]

"However, the laws that are currently in effect in South Dakota and are in legislation in other states prohibit abortion in even those circumstances."

 

these laws were passed to try to reassert state sovereignty and put an abortion case before the supreme court to try to overturn Roe. you should study up on just how 'in effect' they are.

[angelofdeath]

"The Welfare State's Attack on the Family

 

by Vedran Vuk

 

[Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006]

[subscribe at email services, tell others, or Digg this story.]

 

Most people listening to libertarian ideas are thrown off by the thought that private charity, in absence of government programs, will handle problems involving truly helpless people. Charitable organizations are active but no one knows for sure how much donations would increase in a tax-free society.

When a person becomes old without savings, what is he or she supposed to do without socialist programs such as Social Security? The forgotten institution of charity here is the family. When libertarians talk of charity, we don't just mean the Salvation Army, but taking care of your relatives as well.

When my brother and I were babies, my grandparents stepped in to take care of us while my mother and father worked. My parents in turn provided for the whole household living under one roof to save money. When my father moved to the United States and made more money, he made sure that my grandparents would be taken care of.

During the Balkan War, members of my family were forcefully removed and became refugees due to the conflict. When they lost everything, guess who took care of them? The whole family together sent money and whatever supplies that they could.

So was the rule everywhere before the welfare state: your parents who took care of you financially as a child — you may need to help them in the future. This basic element of family life seems to be mind-boggling to supporters of the welfare state. Proponents of the welfare state constantly speak about our responsibility to society through redistributionist taxes.

I have no responsibility to society as a whole, to some stranger I've never met. I personally feel that I do have a responsibility toward my immediate family. Programs like TANF ("Temporary Assistance for Needy Families"), Social Security, and unemployment insurance take away our responsibility to the family and place it in the hands of the state. They crowd out our sense of moral responsibility.

Family was an integral way of caring for individuals as a whole for centuries. Supporters of the welfare state forget the past.

Before the advent of Social Security, what happened to people who lived past 65 years? Did these people just starve to death from hunger by the tens of thousands? No. Did a huge wave of charitable organizations come to their rescue? Not always. So, how did they survive? Everyone can agree that there were no mass deaths of 65-year-old people recorded in the Great Depression before Social Security took effect.

These people survived under a basic principle in life. You take care of your kids, and one day, they will take care of you. In the past, having children was an investment in your future. You knew that one day your children would take care of your needs as you took care of theirs.

This created many incentives that produced a healthy family. For one thing, you had to be somewhat nicer to your children and make sure that you instilled good values. Children without a good work ethic or good values are not likely to perform well in the job market. A parent would have to teach these values to children to insure his or her own needs at a later time. Responsibility to the family ranked highly. Without this ingrained in a child, he or she might grow up one day and never return the nurturing given by parents early in life.

With government attempting to smooth over every mistake in life, we get very different incentives. If your parents are entirely subsidized on welfare, how much do they really care about your future? Parents usually care for their children and want the best for them. But parents who know that they either raise their child right or don't eat in the future will try much times harder to make sure their child stays away from drugs, crime, and other bad decisions.

The standard abortion excuses also play a major role in the issue. The welfare state has destroyed the culture of hard work and family. I cringe every time I hear someone talk about poverty as an excuse for abortion.

I don't want to discuss here the rights and wrongs of abortion, but how can you make an excuse that you are too poor to have a child and you have to abort? During much harder economic times, families were having ten or twelve children. Huge families were not uncommon. Today, these abortionists want me to believe that with economic conditions a hundred times better than before, they can't afford to have a child. They're going to have to do better than that.

It's not easy to have a child whether you are rich or poor. At any point in life a baby is difficult to raise and deal with. Even with a college degree, a young mother will have just as much difficulty as a teenager. These are facts of life. Raising children is hard work! The welfare state has reinforced the idea that if anything is hard, it must be wrong.

Doing the right thing is not easy. Difficulty does not justify immoral actions. Sure, taking care of your elderly parents is harder on you than having the state do it. But is it your moral responsibility? Yes. It is not the responsibility of some other taxpayer who does not even know your parents. Anyone who would leave it to strangers to care for their elderly parents should be ashamed.

Before the welfare state, there existed incentives to have children and insure your own future. Now, we have incentives to break the family apart. TANF actually gives more money to single moms. This may seem like a great program to help single mothers in need, but in reality, the program makes it easier for the man in the family to leave. It reduces the man's practical responsibility to stay and raise the child. The program creates more single mothers!

And some day, it will be the government, not his offspring, who will provide for the man who left. This brings even fewer incentives to raise kids properly.

Unemployment insurance has also undermined society. During the Great Depression, there were great movements of people to find jobs. If there was a job somewhere, people went. Now, with unemployment and welfare people stay in the same city watching everything around them rot and decay. Government housing keeps them complacent as they beg for yet more assistance. When times get tough, people will move to get jobs. The Great Depression has already proved this. Did millions die without welfare or unemployment insurance? No. Does it improve people's lives to subsidize their staying in one place? No.

I can speak from experience. I've seen charity and love within my own family overcoming all obstacles in our times. Being born in former Yugoslavia, my family was accustomed to scarcity and socialist poverty. But I saw the family working together to achieve the greater ends of each member. This was not a socialist kind of responsibility. A family member cared for you at a point in time; later you cared for them.

No one owes you a living: $6

My father's mother spent all her savings of thirty years to send my father to medical school. There was no government help there. When, years down the road, she had to retire because of breast cancer, guess who paid her bills and medical treatments. My aunt and uncle also assisted by living with her and taking care of her on a daily basis. There was no dependable national healthcare. There was no subsidized retirement home or social security. The children she gave birth to and raised responsibly made sure that she was well taken care off until her final days. Each was fulfilling his responsibility of a child to his mother.

The agenda of the state is to break up the family. The more you depend on the state, the more you justify its existence, and the larger it grows. The idea that people can provide things for themselves either individually or through the family frightens the state. It delegitimizes its role. The role of the family is dangerous to its survival.

Movement away from the welfare state is movement toward better family values and better family cohesiveness.

The death of the family is the life of the state."

[angelofdeath]

"And, I am sorry, but I think it is rediculous to try and read the constitution as an all knowing and non living document. How can you say that the founders would have written a welfare state if they wanted that way. Do you think that they had the foresight to account for the volume and depth of society as it is now? THere is a reason we say the past was a simpler time. It was."

 

it was meant to be about as living as the words of the document say. actually, it was made to be amended. the anti federalists wouldnt sign the damn thing unless there was provision for amendments. however, it was made hard to amend for a reason. by acknowledging that the constitution, the document that is supposed to be restraining our government, is a living document that can be molded to what ever you want, is a concession to bush. how much do you like the patriot act, real id act, non congressional declaration of war, domestic spying and the like? chaulk all this up to a living constitution. patrick henry was right about the constitutional convention when he refused to show because he 'smelled a rat.' he knew that even the constitution would be used to bring tyranny on the people. boy, was he ever right. and the people who want it to be living, only want it to be living on certain issues..... you cant have it both ways.

[the.crooked]

i spoke nothing of the sanctity of family. that is a whole other issue that while having an impact, is not the same as the discussion at hand.

[WORDISM45]

Crooked's last paragraph is the fucking biz right there.

yeah he made some very good points except rousseau didn't agree with locke and hobbs about the state of nature, he saw the state of nature as complete freedom and thought the social contract and property ownership were abominations.

 

i have to say im really glad there are viewpoints like dawood's and angelofdeath on here caus they actually make me think outside the square all the time.

 

for example in relation to what has been said in this thread and constantly on 12oz about how brutal and sadistic shariah law is. we in our western countrys have the luxury of being wealthy enough, at this current point in time, to incarcerate and even attempt to rehabilitate criminals. But think about it in a society that can't afford to have so much of their resources tied up in the imprisonment and guarding of criminals the only solution is severe corporal and capital punishment. you cant have criminals running around unchecked and you cant waste all your tiem and money containing them so you have to divest them of their ability to commit the crime.

 

Obviously there is a massive grey area surrounding what constitutes a crime and people would argue that adultery and shit shouldnt be a crime and yeah i definitely agree with that for our western countrys where people tend to 'fall in love' with a new person every couple of seconds. however in a small society that struggles to maintain itself the effect of adultery and petty theft and shit has a massive impact on social cohesion. A one off small criminal act might not have such a great effect but the threat of those acts reoccuring or happening on a larger scale iis too great a risk to take and i think in that situation it is in the best interests of the community to deal extremely severely with any criminal.

 

that beign said i dont know of any self sustaining community where those conditions apply at the current point in time because fat cats have got their grubby hands on the puppet strings of every country and government thgat exists and have nurtured conditions that force people into crime by having huge social divisions.

[angelofdeath]

"yeah he made some very good points except rousseau didn't agree with locke and hobbs about the state of nature, he saw the state of nature as complete freedom and thought the social contract and property ownership were abominations"

 

exactly. a big difference between the legacy of the american and french revolutions.

[the.crooked]

the likeness of the molding of the constitution to bush that you mentioned... thats why we have checks, if so unappropriately used in this case.

 

we elect representatives in good faith that they will do our interest well. im not under any illusion that our government works squeaky clean. in fact i rather despise it in its current state. I have many radical tendings, but I don't express them that often. Go to the "who are they" thread if you want that.

 

ill post more later, computers acting funny.