One thing Nuclear, its one step from realizing politicians are total self-serving scumbags who will ass-**** the little guy at any chance they get to realizing the only way to prevent them from ass-****ing Average Joe is through a Constitution that strictly limits their ability to ass-**** him. Keep this up distaste of politicians and the federal government and you may become a conservative.No, it's by keeping corporate hands off of him. Constitutional limits have nothing to do with it. The problem is our politicians are bought and sold by just about every influential industry out there--defense, pharma, insurance, tobacco--and they're so afraid to make votes against them and lose their funding for re-election campaigns that they refuse to serve the American people.
you have failed to cause any real health reform or control of the inhumane insurance industry.
If you really think that Politician Bob has sold his votes to someone other than his constituents, vote him out of office, dammit.
providing reliable health insurance for millions of desperate and uninsured Americans--and have thus far, failed to deliver.
Maintaining a perverted status quo that kills Americans is not the definition of conservatism. That's the definition of political bull****, and it doesn't matter what 'side' it is.
I terrified myself tonight. After piecing together all of the above individual betrayals into one big picture, I temporarily lost my mind. I threw a duffel bag into the back of my truck, and turned on the engine. I was in the middle of entering an address into my GPS when I started to realize what I was doing. As if I had blacked out in the previous ten minutes, I took a look into the bag in the back--and pulled out a Remington 870 and boxes of ammunition. Then I looked at the GPS--I had plotted a course from Omaha, Nebraska to DC.
To a dark place this line of thought takes us--yet it raises an important question. How long will it be until the average working-class citizen in America begins taking more aggressive action rather than signing petitions that are becoming more and more meaningless?
To a dark place this line of thought takes us--yet it raises an important question. How long will it be until the average working-class citizen in America begins taking more aggressive action rather than signing petitions that are becoming more and more meaningless?
The worst part about this sort of thing is that America has reached a state of technological and military prowess where a popular revolution is impossible. Literally impossible. It won't happen. The only possibility for any significant change in the United States' fundamental government is through a coup d'etat imposed by the military. which will likely end the way most military coups end (tyrannical oligarchy by a junta). All the guns and IEDs in the world won't help a "revolution" where the United States' governing authorities (both public and robber-baron) already controls everything--the media, the infrastructure, commerce, supply of food and other essentials. The foundation of American representative democracy--government by the consent of the governed--is a thing of the past. The government can govern us even if nobody consents. The government could probably manipulate sufficient people into consenting to things against their own interests to do whatever it wants. Hell, it already demonstrates this power on a smaller scale.Founding principles? Let me quote Madison, who said that the American "democracy" must "be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."
I used to be a Republican, manipulated into believing in things that went against my own interests--brazen endorsement of a religion I have no part in by all levels of government, insurance death panels, "wars" on drugs and terror and this and that which will not and cannot be won. It's amazing how easily the people can be led against themselves. I predict that within 20 years the American economy will completely disintegrate and the American government will use the military to enforce order. Whether or not the military obeys orders or deposes the federal government imposes its own kind of order on the country, I don't know, but I think I ought to be somewhere else when it happens.
Good job, federal government of the United States of America. You have betrayed your founding principles (not that they ever meant much; things like Jim Crow, Comstock Laws, and the War on Terror the price we pay for having a constitution written as poetry rather than a legal document), set the American economy on a path to self-destruction in the name of "prosperity" and "growth", and are now pissing away America's superpower status with soaring deficits and the use of boorish power plays and "do as I say, not as I do".
Find people who see what you see; they do exist actually, just look at all half a million protesters who showed up in New York to protest the opening of the Iraq War.
The Authoritarians reviewed
Way back, Blake Stacey recommended to me The Authoritarians, by Bob Altemeyer. It is a free online book about the psychology of the authoritarian personality. I get the impression that Blake Stacey is in the habit of recommending this book to everyone. Allow me to echo this recommendation to you, my readers. It is a short, easy, and fun read. Bob is rather casual can chatty. He never gets bogged down with numbers, and yet he is clear about how all his conclusions are supported by scientific data. And did I mention it's available free?
The Authoritarians is one of those books that tries to answer the question, "What the hell is wrong with people?" The Bush administration, the religious right, the Creationist movements... Personally, I'm a moderate, an independent, but I won't touch the Republican party because it has gone to hell. Bob Altemeyer, I suspect is in the same position. But while I might advance few pet theories as to why this is, all I have to defend them is my super-humble rhetoric. Altemeyer's claims are not pet theories, but scientific findings. They could easily have been falsified, but instead they are strongly supported by a variety of surveys and studies.
His explanation? There is a certain kind of personality that is well-correlated with all these problems. Altemeyer calls it Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA). First, I should clarify a few things. Authoritarianism does not refer to the authorities themselves, but the people who would obey those authorities. Also, "right-wing" is used in the sense of being lawful or proper, not in the sense of being political conservative. RWAs in the US tend to be very politically conservative, but those in soviet Russia would probably be socialists. (There is also such a thing as Left-Wing Authoritarianism but that is not covered by the book.) Right-Wing Authoritarians exhibit the following qualities: submission to the established authorities in society, aggression in the name of these authorities, and wanting to enforce conventionalism on the rest of society.
The study of authoritarianism famously traces back to the Milgram experiments. In these experiments, the subject is told to shock another person with increasing voltage as part of a learning and punishment study. Soon the other person (an actor) starts screaming, going unconscious, etc. Of course, the study isn't really about learning and punishment, but about how far people will go if an authority asks them to. Amazingly, ~60% would go through the entire experiment (though they certainly don't enjoy it). This shows how even the small amounts of authoritarianism in all of us can make us do crazy things.
RWA is measured through a 22 question survey that scores people from 20 to 180. People who score higher, the "high RWAs", are correlated with the following:
* Being soft on the crimes of the authorities themselves.
* Religious fundamentalism and evangelicalism (which, incidentally, are very well-correlated with each other)
* Ethnocentrism (which is in turn correlated with prejudice)
* Fear of a dangerous world.
* Self-righteousness
* Illogical thinking and compartmentalization
There's a lot more detailed discussion of these and more in the book. There is also a similar discussion of the authoritarian leader's personality, which also looks bad but in different ways.
Now, if you're like me, you're skeptical of the efficacy of any such survey. But it turns out that there is a very rigorous way to create a valid survey that involves testing many possible questions and measuring their correlations. He briefly mentioned a similar survey developed in the 1940s that was discredited because of its poor design. The new one is scientifically tested. You might ask, "How do we know that this is all related to authoritarianism as opposed to religious fundamentalism?" We know because the RWA scale correlates with the above qualities better than any fundamentalist scale does. Altemeyer deserves lots of skeptical points for carefully explaining all this.
The most interesting part might be where Altemeyer suggests solutions to the problem. According to him, it would probably be ineffective to argue with these people directly. Instead, we should work with high RWAs them towards common goals, since lets them see outside of their community--high RWAs tend to feel a lot of pressure to be "normal", so we just need to show them. We should increase the visibility minorities. And we should promote higher education, which tends to decrease people's RWA scores. He also says it would help if we reduced fear-mongering, or if we taught kids to question authorities, but he doesn't think either of these things will realistically happen.
Aside from critical thinking, one of the major topics of skepticism is understanding why people think the way they do. By that standard, this is a great book for skeptics. It gives plenty of insight into RWAs and what makes them tick.
It's also an open question as to how many of those Americans actually want it. A fair number of poor uninsured people would still not want a "hand out" because they have been so brainwashed with propaganda of "self sufficiency". Read "Deer Hunting with Jesus" if you have the chance.
it's amazing what 10 years can do to a country, I've been seeing a potential for a civil war breaking out for the last three or so years, mostly due to one half of the country trying to tell the other half what to do/how to live (and vice versa). the liberals want collectivism the conservatives want tradition, both sides think that forcing the other side to do what they want via the government is the answer, but that's only going to make everybody more militant. I think the real solution is NOT forcing people into things, reduce the size of the federal government empower states and city governments, but I'm a libertarian and your political leaders have convinced you I'm a dangerous anarchist.
I've been seeing a potential for a civil war breaking out for the last three or so years, mostly due to one half of the country trying to tell the other half what to do/how to live (and vice versa). the liberals want collectivism the conservatives want tradition, both sides think that forcing the other side to do what they want via the government is the answer, but that's only going to make everybody more militant.For the last time, that's an illusion. Among the parties themselves there is little real disagreement. It's just factionalism to them.
I terrified myself tonight. After piecing together all of the above individual betrayals into one big picture, I temporarily lost my mind. I threw a duffel bag into the back of my truck, and turned on the engine. I was in the middle of entering an address into my GPS when I started to realize what I was doing. As if I had blacked out in the previous ten minutes, I took a look into the bag in the back--and pulled out a Remington 870 and boxes of ammunition. Then I looked at the GPS--I had plotted a course from Omaha, Nebraska to DC.
That bag is still in my truck. The GPS is still there, programmed. But I'm not. I nearly became one of them tonight. What scared me the most is that I actually thought it would work, that peaceful demonstration and action through Congress has been all-but fruitless in the past several years, and only the ones who advocate violence and who suffer a guilty pleasure through anarchy and chaos have a strong, influential voice in this country.
Sorry, hold the phone. What's so wrong with self-sufficiency? What's wrong with trying to avoid handouts? Apparently I've been brainwashed, because in my book those are definitely Good Things. Care to explain why I'm wrong?
Republicans say they'll protect us from the terrorists and the Democrats, we just have to sign over all of our rights and hand over our entire paychecks and be dependent on them for everything. Democrats say they'll protect us from being hungry and sick and the Republicans, we just have to sign over all of our rights and hand over our entire paychecks and be dependent on them for everything.
For the last time, that's an illusion. Among the parties themselves there is little real disagreement. It's just factionalism to them.
Not impressive at all buddy, not one bit. Any respect I had for your left-wing views went out the window.
The Authoritarians
a book by
Bob Altemeyer
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
It's freely available so feel free to check it out.
I don't know if that was supposed to impress us, how "devout" you are to your cause, but let me tell you in all seriousness: that was not funny.And a hundred times this. Nuclear1, if what you said was really the case, you need to get help now. I don't care if it's military, civilian, whatever...talk to a professional. Those sorts of actions aren't normal in the least, and like Stealth said, none of us wants to wake up tomorrow and see you in the news just because you "blacked out" again.
It was not impressive.
It was not motivating.
I don't know what you wanted to accomplish by telling us that, but one thing is clear - you need help. And i'm not just saying that.
By 'help' i don't mean coming onto an online community where 99.999% of the people you have never met nor ever will.
I mean serious, psychological help.
Anyone that 'temporarily' loses his/her mind, loads guns and ammo in their vehicle, and plots a course for the government capital needs. help..
Yes it's very very probable you're just telling us you did that so we can see just how serious you are, and how strongly you feel for your cause, but it's also possible that you really are tellin the truth.
But the next time you 'black out' for 10 minutes, maybe you won't 'wake up' and notice your gun in the back seat. Maybe you'll have seriously hurt someone.
Not impressive at all buddy, not one bit.
It's my personal belief that the Bill of Rights is the most perfect set of man-made laws ever written.
You know, the right to think freely, speak freely, be yourself, defend yourself, etc. Yeah, generally the right to be human.
...This unfortunately does not seem to compute with many modern/upcoming world-wide/US policies or proposals... :wtf:
It does not follow that right necessitates duty. Not in the strictest sense, at least. Anyone can refuse to invoke a right of or for something. A right to free speech does not imply a duty not to silence someone, unless you think that a restriction is considered a "duty." A right to education means that one can attend class, not that one is automatically obligated to pay for it, nor that one is compelled to attend.Incorrect. A right to education means that the government must at least provide you with one should you want it. However, education is not free. The government pays for education by giving people a duty to pay for it, in the form of taxes (since the government is not a business and does not generate wealth). You want a retirement pension? That will cost you money in taxes too. And yes, the restrictions are "duties". A right to free speech cannot exist if you are not required to refrain from preventing people from saying things you disapprove of. Rights are really defined by the responsibilities they put on people (even the government itself is saddled with many such responsibilities), not the other way around.
Where, in the Constitution, do two rights legitimately clash? I can't find one for the life of me.
If we could, I would prefer to keep this domestic instead of international. The rights laid down in the U.S. Constitution do their best to be rights, not the at-best flimsy guidlines the UN uses.
If the government is instituting the duty, it does not follow that it is part and parcel with the right. What if I were to refuse the right to education? The tax is still there. Regardless of whether the right itself even exists, the duty is still there. I further take issue with your use of the word duty. The "duty" to not prevent people from saying something is not a duty, it is an incentive. If the incentive is to not be sent to jail, it's still an incentive, not a duty. Rights are defined as a universal freedom, not a responsibility. Any responsibilities that result are not necessarily directly caused by the right itself.
I have to take issue with your clash of rights example. The rights in the Constitution are not the rights that all people should afford all other people, they are the rights that the government must afford people (hence the term rights instead of privileges). If I were to verbally intimidate said black man, I would not be arrested for violating an Amendment, but rather for violating some other legislation.
If we could, I would prefer to keep this domestic instead of international. The rights laid down in the U.S. Constitution do their best to be rights, not the at-best flimsy guidlines the UN uses.
Also, a private individual is fully capable of infringing on your rights.
Also, not all rights can be defined as anything like a "universal freedom".
Only the government declares and guarantees rights. The government enforces them.That's not the way rights should be. Rights should merely exist, not be granted by the government. What the government grants the government can take away. Rights should instead be preserved by the government.
Threat of negative consequences does not by itself constitute responsibility. Were that true, it would be my duty to avoid anything that could ever possibly be dangerous like the plague, since anything dangerous carries with it an inherent threat of negative consequences. If I may ask, what is the threat of negative consequences to not quartering troops in my home when not in a time of war? Where is my responsibility there?The negative consequences of the plague are not handed down by an authority. A right cannot have any meaning unless an authority exists to make people respect it. And an authority holding you to a certain behavior is most definitely a responsibility.
I can indeed "refuse the right" to something. Apparently the law agrees with this, since people can refuse their rights all the time when it comes to legal counsel. Don't get me wrong, refusing something does not magically make it not exist. I know that. Refusing != losing. However, whether I accept the right to education or not, the tax is still there. What about someone who has already finished high school? His/her schooling is no longer provided by the government, but the tax still exists. Yes, they can still go to college, but that is independent of the government, and money is given to the college instead, but the government still takes the money for a "right" he/she can no longer exercise.The right to an "education", as understood by most governments today, does not include tertiary education. Once you graduate twelfth grade you have completed your guaranteed education. You can no longer exercise your right to an education because you have already received it in full. Now it's your turn to provide for the education of the next generation, as part of your responsibility to the society that gave you yours.
You missed my point here. My point was that people do not guarantee rights to each other. Only the government declares and guarantees rights. The government enforces them.A government guarantees rights, but a constitution creates them, and the government is itself bound by the constitution. The constitution thus (unless the system becomes perverted) is the supreme authority, which overrides even the will of the government. This is where the phrase "rule of law" comes from--the law is above the state.
Personally, I think that anything that is a "right" and not an overblown privilege should be defined as such.Your definition as a "right" as something you just get out of nowhere with no strings attached does not exist, anywhere. Rights exist because they are created by a constitution or other declaration and protected, maintained, and safeguarded by a government, by creating a network of duties among the individual, other individuals, and the government. Each has responsibilities towards the other. The constitution is the supreme authority by which government and citizen are bound. "Freedom is not free" is a trite cliche, but there is truth to it--you have the right to speak your mind because no one is allowed to shut you up.
Sorry, hold the phone. What's so wrong with self-sufficiency? What's wrong with trying to avoid handouts? Apparently I've been brainwashed, because in my book those are definitely Good Things. Care to explain why I'm wrong?
If everything does go all wahooni-shaped, it's the self-sufficient ones who will survive...
For the last time, that's an illusion. Among the parties themselves there is little real disagreement. It's just factionalism to them.
I can indeed "refuse the right" to something. Apparently the law agrees with this, since people can refuse their rights all the time when it comes to legal counsel. Don't get me wrong, refusing something does not magically make it not exist. I know that. Refusing != losing. However, whether I accept the right to education or not, the tax is still there. What about someone who has already finished high school? His/her schooling is no longer provided by the government, but the tax still exists. Yes, they can still go to college, but that is independent of the government, and money is given to the college instead, but the government still takes the money for a "right" he/she can no longer exercise.
The right to an "education", as understood by most governments today, does not include tertiary education. Once you graduate twelfth grade you have completed your guaranteed education. You can no longer exercise your right to an education because you have already received it in full.
Don't know if that's true. Of the countries that do provide a free education for all, quite a few believe in that including university. Most European countries certainly do.Point taken, although it still only applies for primary and secondary in the US, which is the focus of the conversation.
To be honest I think you were closer to the real reason earlier when you said that it is your duty to pay for a free education because it is your right to have one.