Isbskins vs Osborn F. Enready - Life, world, and society.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Either man is imperfect and needs government and the external controls it brings, or man is noble and not subject to corruption and therefore is only hampered by external controls.

How is government an "external control" if it consists of these imperfect men? Presuming you are an advocate of democracy, I don't see what's "external" about it at all.

EDIT:

Crap, sorry. You can ignore that if you want.
*Creeps silently out of the debate*

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman How is government an "external control" if it consists of these imperfect men? Presuming you are an advocate of democracy, I don't see what's "external" about it at all. EDIT: Crap, sorry. You can ignore that if you want. *Creeps silently out of the debate*

I'ts cool. I don't mind. It would probably be best to keep it focused between Osborn and I, but in the interest of assuming he might ask the same I will answer.

There is no perfect way to halt corruption. But, the closest that we can come is pretty much the system that we have. Where I would say our "problems" center is on the fact that too many people are too complacient. The only thing that can combat the power of concentrations of wealth is strong government. Power v. power. It is a known factor. The arena may shift, and the "champions" may change, but it is now and will always be power v. power. One man v. another, Arthur's Knights v. Mordred's, etc. (Ok, so that's a fictional reference, but you get the point.)

It is not that the FCC or the EPA or any other governmental agency are inherently evil because they are corruptable. EVERY institution is corruptable. We can not abolish corruption nor institutions. What we need to concentrate on doing is making them as strong as we can make them while at the same time making them as transparent and answerable as possible. Too weak, and the populace is at the mercy of the stregnth of powerful institutions that can opperate outside of "the forces of market correction" for long and dangerous periods of time. Transparency is probably the biggest issue. And that is an issue mostly because people are all too willing to let "someone else worry about it". If the FAA protects the interests of the Aviation industry rather than the intersts of the public, it is because the public got lazy and quit insisting that it's foremost mandate be public safety, and not guarding profits. The business of business is business, but the business of the government it to guard the public interst. It can not do that and have no power over business. That is not possible.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I say: I have said it a thousand times, if you had been listening. Limited government serves a purpose, minimal government being the best.

And the only purpose that small, limited, minimal government serves is to provide an agency to negotiate the terms of the final surrender when your country is over run by the strong central power that picked you off like a fish in a barrel. Unless, of course, you form an alignance with a strong power who dictates policy to you anyway, so you may as well have been over run.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Man has no right to rule other men by use of force, unless those men create government of free will, and all who are under it, are there of free will. Do you see how the created system as it was created, is different than it is now in the United States?

And all alterations were achieved with majority consent. You may be a minority member when it comes to the majority of policy, but you are free to emigrate, which means, your rights have not been violated under your own rules. You ARE free to leave.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready In the states early years, taxation had SPECIFIC RULES for being issued, and a means of doing so. Taxes werent taken for wealth redistribution, they were taken for BARE NECESSITY OF GOVERNMENT, and taken as fairly as known of the time. (census) What we have today is a government who stands with a gun, forcing those under it to donate to its coffers, regardless of its use or intent, socialist programs or not, even though this is a DESIGNED CAPITALIST, LIMITED GOVERNMENT SYSTEM. Most importantly, I don't believe ANY government is just, without recognizing the rights of man as in the BOR, in full, without any "clause" that allows changing those rights as recognized and ISOLATING government from attempting to infringe those rights, unless substantial proof or sworn testimony is given by a person claiming their rights have been violated by another. In other words. If you of free will live in a town, that towns community has a right to set laws with which to govern itself, by the will of the people. Those laws, whatever they may be, can be just, as long as they do not infringe or limit the rights of the individual unless SUFFICIENT PROOF has been shown to authorities of the town, that a wrong has been committed. The action of rights infringement is THE CRIME, and only then may government interfere, with substantial proof met to ALLOW their entry to the case.

See above.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I am not an anarchist, though I would be without a government that recognizes my rights, since at that time, government would no longer serve any rational purpose to me.

Too bad you aren't the MMFIC. If you were, you could alter reality.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready So, you claim that mankind is void of nobility as a free act of will? You must also discount honor, trust and respect also then? I hate to tell you this, but I often give without being forced to by government. If people didn't GIVE of their own will, how would non-profit charities stay in business helping the poor? You alledge that nobility is rare, while I say it is THE NORM. Men seek to escape oppression of any means, and oppression in the name of freeing the human spirit has to be the weakest case EVER BUILT. Where does respect come from, if there is no seperator from sloth to ambition? In your "ideals" what is that seperator?

No, this is what I claim: That when you do not compell, too many of our weak and corruptable brethern will simply attempt to be freeriders, and the good is negated. Check this(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-rider/) out for a more complete picture of what I mean.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: And the only purpose that small, limited, minimal government serves is to provide an agency to negotiate the terms of the final surrender when your country is over run by the strong central power that picked you off like a fish in a barrel.

I say:
Only if you disarm Isbskins, or get propaganda'd out of your rights to arms without a fight, and/or sanity.

Even your hero admits this quote:
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
Ghandi

Why is that Isbskins? Because as long as force exists, man will use it be it club, pike, sword or gun. The gun is the great equalizer, and with it in the hands of all people, liberty can't be taken without total control of information. What are the worlds governments working towards? Total control of all information............

Isbskins said: Unless, of course, you form an alignance with a strong power who dictates policy to you anyway, so you may as well have been over run.

I say:
The strongest power is the people and their collective labor. Their labor is the only reason they are sought for control by the establishment, no matter what "ism" you put behind it. Out of all the "ism's", there is only one that recognizes (not grants), the rights of the individual and by no coincidence that ONE is what created the most wealth, the most industrial change and the most productive socieites in the world, bar none. That was the Constitutionally Limited, Democratic Representative Republic, for which it stood. Now the collective "socialists" of all flavors are rushing in to try to take through force of law, that which they cannot earn for themselves as honest human beings. They use the force of the law against the very people they live, talk and socialize with, and they do it with no conscience, because they have "displaced" their responsibility to the government, leaving them free of guilt in their imaginary world of warped collective/individual dependence. They formed some imaginary individually subjective switch in their mind that tricks them into thinking they are entitled to rights, though others are not. Without rights, there is no theory to even base your platform on, though you don't notice that.

Your entire theory falls apart on itself due to the questions you refuse to answer.

Isbskins said: And all alterations were achieved with majority consent. You may be a minority member when it comes to the majority of policy, but you are free to emigrate, which means, your rights have not been violated under your own rules. You ARE free to leave.

I say:
You don't seem to understand. One option I would have, would be to leave. Another option would be to revolt, since the government no longer represented those it was put in place to protect. They were put in place to protect the rights of the people, not the peoples wishes. The people, nor the government, have the power to "give" what is not theirs to give, nor do they have the power to "take" what is not theirs to take.

My rights, as well as yours, are non-negotiable in government.

[lsbskins1]

Please inform me what questions, exactally, I have "refused" to answer? I will answer ANYTHING. I do not refuse any question. I may not attach importance to the same areas of consideration as you, but there is no aspect of my beliefs I am "afraid to address" or any such nonsense. So, just so I can be sure not to miss anything you think it crucial, how about a numbered list of questions I have not addressed to your satisfaction.


And, by the way, I do place Ghandi up there. So, it is not impossible for you to know something about me if I do not say it specifically in the thread. Can we stop acting like we are complete mysteries unless and until we "reveal".

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: So, just so I can be sure not to miss anything you think it crucial, how about a numbered list of questions I have not addressed to your satisfaction.

I say:
Ok, sure.
(for clarification, I define the word "right" for these questions as "the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled by birth."

1) Is it a self-evident truth that individuals (humans) have free-will?

2) Do you think there should be defined "rights" for individuals (humans) in law that are kept sacred from infringement by any means in law?

3) If yes to the last question, what are those "rights"?

3) If not through the term of "property", how would one define "self-ownership"?

4) Do you believe in "self-ownership"?

5) Do you think man is born with an inherent ability to use force?

6) If yes to the above question, is there ever a valid reason for man to use "force" against another man? If so, what reasons? If not, why not?

7) If no to the above question, how can an individual "check", or counter the force of other men?

8) Can a person of free-will ever be controlled in all aspects?

9) If no to the last question, does law then depend on the respect of the individual, which is entirely subjective?

10) When speaking of government, is it better to define in law that which is illegal, or to define what is legal?

11) If the only laws that existed were the Amendments 1 through 10 in the Constitution, known as the "bill of rights", would that mean that anything that didn't infringe those rights would be legal?

12) If personal fulfillment is being met, can an individual action be "pointless"?



I have more questions, but I don't want to ask too many at once. Maybe this is too many?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I say: Ok, sure. (for clarification, I define the word "right" for these questions as "the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled by birth." 1) Is it a self-evident truth that individuals (humans) have free-will??

At the risk of spiraling out of control in a hopeless philosophical backwash, I will say I believe we have free-will, but that free-will is neither a self-evident truth, nor a precurser to a right to be free of social responsibility. I view it in a secular version of the idea of sin. You can choose to do right or wrong. But right is right and wrong is wrong. And just because you are free to choose, does not make every choice equally valid or correct.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready 2) Do you think there should be defined "rights" for individuals (humans) in law that are kept sacred from infringement by any means in law??

No, your statement is too broad, and too open to interpretation. I believe we could come to some agreement as to a statement that would cover what we both believe. I believe we should expect protections of enumerated rights from our government, but I do not believe humans are capable of perfect vision, so nothing should be viewed as immutable or sacred. But that does not mean we have "no rights", just that we may seek to expand or amend and that expantion or amendment is not, of necessity, bad.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready 3) If yes to the last question, what are those "rights"??

Think, The Bill of Rights.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready 3) If not through the term of "property", how would one define "self-ownership"??

An awful metaphysical question... but the answer for me is that we own ourselves in that we must own the consequences of our choices, be they good or bad.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready 4) Do you believe in "self-ownership"??

Yes.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready 5) Do you think man is born with an inherent ability to use force??

Yes.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready 6) If yes to the above question, is there ever a valid reason for man to use "force" against another man? If so, what reasons? If not, why not??

Yes. The valid uses of force are WAY TOO varied to specifically enumerate. Some general situations: To protect yourself from harm (kick that nasty rapist right in the balls, dear or poke his eyes out and if your life is realistically threatened, use deadly force), the legitimate enforcement of law, if the offender is resisting said enforcement (burgler attempts to run, you can tackle him, if he attempts to punch you, you can do no more and no less than is necessary to subdue) . But, these are only examples, as there are obviously MANY other situations that may result in the application of force being necessary.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready 7) If no to the above question, how can an individual "check", or counter the force of other men??

I said yes.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready 8) Can a person of free-will ever be controlled in all aspects??

No.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready 9) If no to the last question, does law then depend on the respect of the individual, which is entirely subjective??

Yes, but not on the micro level, on the macro level. Law depends on the majority respect of the governed. If it required the respect of each individual to be valid, one insane psychopath could negate the law.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready 10) When speaking of government, is it better to define in law that which is illegal, or to define what is legal??

That which is illegal. But, thankfully, humans are capable of complex thinking and we can follow and adapt and use a mixture of defining both legal and illegal.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready 11) If the only laws that existed were the Amendments 1 through 10 in the Constitution, known as the "bill of rights", would that mean that anything that didn't infringe those rights would be legal??

This is a pointless question. These are not the only laws in existence, and that has never, nor will it ever be the case.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready 12) If personal fulfillment is being met, can an individual action be "pointless"??

No.

[Osborn F Enready]

Thank you for answering Isbskins, I will try to post a response later when I get some time.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: At the risk of spiraling out of control in a hopeless philosophical backwash, I will say I believe we have free-will, but that free-will is neither a self-evident truth, nor a precurser to a right to be free of social responsibility. I view it in a secular version of the idea of sin. You can choose to do right or wrong. But right is right and wrong is wrong. And just because you are free to choose, does not make every choice equally valid or correct.

I say:
You know what is coming, which is why you didn't want to go here.

Philosophy.

You know the answer, but refuse to accept it.

If the person is not the one to decide right and wrong, who is? Then you apparently don't believe people can't be controlled if you think some power or moral authority must exist?

This is why the whole system as you describe, can't work.

Isbskins said: No, your statement is too broad, and too open to interpretation. I believe we could come to some agreement as to a statement that would cover what we both believe. I believe we should expect protections of enumerated rights from our government, but I do not believe humans are capable of perfect vision, so nothing should be viewed as immutable or sacred. But that does not mean we have "no rights", just that we may seek to expand or amend and that expantion or amendment is not, of necessity, bad.

I say:
I think it clearly is bad, since if it is left vague, it is a weakness. If there is room for good to be done, there is also usually plenty of room for bad.

There must be a process, which there is in the Constitution. The process wasn't followed by government, so we get what we have today. A rogue government, and a dead Constitution, no rights except what the individual will defend in court WITH public support(if they can get it) or by arms.

Isbskins said: An awful metaphysical question... but the answer for me is that we own ourselves in that we must own the consequences of our choices, be they good or bad.

I say:
Then how can you condone welfare? How are those on welfare ACCEPTING their choices, by living of others labor?

Isbskins said: Yes, but not on the micro level, on the macro level. Law depends on the majority respect of the governed. If it required the respect of each individual to be valid, one insane psychopath could negate the law.

I say:
Do you think doing away with jury nullification rights, has hurt public respect in the law?
Do you think 99 people have the power to remove the rights from 1?

Isbskins said: That which is illegal.

I say:
So, under you ideal setup, outlawing what is illegal instead of listing what is legal, the law is always behind technology, always behind the curve which allows several to be hurt with an absence of law, until new law is written.

Isbskins said: This is a pointless question. These are not the only laws in existence, and that has never, nor will it ever be the case.

I say:
Actually, no I have quite a point to make.

When law is small, isolated to certain TANGIBLES, there is no confusion. When law starts dealing with INTANGIBLES, there is nothing but confusion.

The jury serves as the medium of intangible, since they are all equipped equally as fellow citizens to put themselves in both sides shoes, the accused and the accuser. They are the medium of conscience. That is why we are judged by JURY, and not by one single judge. That is why the jury HAD the right to remove bad law, through nullfication of law by trial.

They are piecemeal destroying everything that made this nation a beacon of individual liberty and individual rights, by removing respect (via welfare and taxation) and trust (via the removal of jury rights, and partially informing of the juries on their obligations).

The moral crisis is real, but the origination of the morals is what is in question.

Our morals are what make up the things we as a nation proclaim "self-evident truths". They weren't from the laws of some God, except the god that is nature, and what nature limits us to, as men.

The real issue is that when law is as clear cut as that, there is no confusion, there is no disrespect, there is no distrust when we all understand and comprehend the law on the same basis.

[lsbskins1]

I now beg your patients. I will address your last post as soon as I can.

[Osborn F Enready]

My patients are yours, as I am in no rush to hurry your answer.

Take your time.