Gilder and Quentyn -- Law vs. Good

[RedSquirrel456]

I've always thought that since the First Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws about religion, whether it is about its practice or the establishment of a state one... that meant that Congress should not even take religion into consideration during its decisions. To be more specific, while Congressmen can all have their own religious affiliation, they need to do what is best for America and the preservation of its freedoms regardless.

Another words, they should sit back on their bottoms and wait to see if issues arise amongst the people, and then take action, since it is (in theory), the people that are represented in our government.

Sadly enough we seem to have gone straight back to a centralized government. It is a centralized government controlled by a large number of people, but central nonetheless. I haven't seen Congress do anything remotely resembling the will of the people. Or the judicial system. Or the president. For sixty years they've done everything wrong. Or, perhaps, ever since the government was conceived, it began a long, painful slide in the wrong direction... the fate of almost all governments, it seems, along with the general will of the people under it.

[UncleMonty]

Mew? Does that include anyone getting supplimental income? Subsidized housing? Financial aid? Government loans? Food stamps?

I would say it should.

Not a single one of those things is a legitimate application of government power and money. NOT ONE. And it constitutes an obscene conflict of interest to expect a recipient of largesse to vote on the matter.

As one man drolly noted, the pigs will vote for whoever carries the slop bucket--- and comfortably forget about any inconvenient little slaughtering he does on the side.

So then, I should either quit college and do my job in retail working full time, (which isn't enough to pay for rent anywhere near here, and I can't leave the state at this time) or not vote.

Remeber, Ralph, there are those that use the programs for their stated purpose. I'm one of 'em. I need financial aid to pay for COMMUNITY college, and I doubt that I can ever afford anything beyond that.

I'm a reasonable, thinking individual. I actually try to see both sides of issues. I like to try and think things through. I try to make each decision based upon the decision at hand, not prior ones or extra baggage (I often fail, but I try.)

Yet, by your reasoning, I shouldn't vote.

I would say, that if you are receiving your assistance as unearned charity at the hand of the government, then yes - you should not be allowed to vote until you are earning your own income. On the other hand, if you have instead received a loan and are compelled to pay it back within a set period of time, then I personally wouldn't call that charity. It would be better for everyone concerned if your loan was through a nongovernmental source, but that's beside the point at the moment.

Right now, less than half of Americans with the right to vote actually do so. I believe that percentage would improve if voting was shown as something to value, and to attain through personal effort.

[Sun tzu]

*snip*

I am thy County the United States. Thou shalt have no other country before me.

I didn't say that word for word, each commandment appears in the US Civil Code. I instead said something confusing. My apologies.

What I meant is that alot of the basic theory behind law in Western culture comes from the 10 Commandments, and things derived from the 10 Commandments. Western Culture is, sadly enough, a Judeo-Christian culture.

I'm still not sure I agree with that. If only 3 out of 10 commandements actually have anything to do with the law, and all three of them are pretty obvious anyway...Then what IS this "alot of basic theory" that "comes from the 10 Commandements"?

[Bengaley]

I would say, that if you are receiving your assistance as unearned charity at the hand of the government, then yes - you should not be allowed to vote until you are earning your own income. On the other hand, if you have instead received a loan and are compelled to pay it back within a set period of time, then I personally wouldn't call that charity. It would be better for everyone concerned if your loan was through a nongovernmental source, but that's beside the point at the moment.

Right now, less than half of Americans with the right to vote actually do so. I believe that percentage would improve if voting was shown as something to value, and to attain through personal effort.

So.

If I throw away my chance at actually getting an education beyond the highschool diploma, and thus any chance of an okay-paying job, and instead concentrating on cashier-level positions in retail companies and hoping for a chance at promotion there...

Then, and only then, I should be allowed to vote.

That, and do you know how many students default on their loans? Too many.

I don't see what your last idea has to do with the subject addressed, though. I feel my vote has a weight to it, so I use that weight...

(And I voted Republican in the last two elections here, because I disagree with the local politics the Democrats are espousing. At least, the ones in power.)

[Bengaley]

I'm still not sure I agree with that. If only 3 out of 10 commandements actually have anything to do with the law, and all three of them are pretty obvious anyway...Then what IS this "alot of basic theory" that "comes from the 10 Commandements"?

Oy vay. This'll take a bit.

The key bit is what you just said. 'all three of them are pretty obvious anyway...'. Why are these the obvious ones?

Because your code of ethics and justice, which you get from society at large, says they are. Its obvious to you, but to someoe coming from a completly different background, it may not be so.

Society evolves its code of ethics over a period of time, reacting to events by saying what is right, and what is wrong. Once in a while, there's big events that drastically change society's perception of an action, but mostly its a slow evolution to a different form.

An example of the two would be... erm. I hate to do it. I hate to Godwin myself, but the Holocaust did change what was acceptable treatment of Jewish people, and was rather drastic. How much of this was actual reaction, and how much of this was the Allied governments trying to demonize the Nazis, I don't know. But it did happen, and quickly.

Not as quickly was Inter-racial marriages and homosexuality. Fourty years ago, the first was extremely contriversial, and the second was never talked about. Now, the first is taken for granted, and the second is slowly starting to become accepted by the mainstream.

Now, those are two obvious social issues, and today it'd be obviously wrong to tell a guy he can't buy a sandwhich at a counter because his skin is black.

So.

Trace the evolution of our Western society, the Western code of ethics, back in time. You'll eventually find it has strong roots, nearly entirley created by: Rome.

Rome, which turned an early form of Christianity into another weapon of Empire, and forced it across the land, and used its power of law to uphold their ethics... which were slowly changed over to be derived from the Bible.

I'm horribly hashing the Romanization of Europe, and then the Christianization of Rome, but that is in effect what happened.

Its not direct, but the relationship is close enough, and reinforced often enough, to have a clear connection.

[Sun tzu]

Um...Putting aside the whole "only 3 out of 10" aspect...What do we have here? "Dont lie, don't steal, don't kill"? If I understand correctly, you're essentially claiming that these seem like an obvious code of ethics and law to me because I grew up in a society that enforces them - and got them, originally, from the 10 Commandements.
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. Such basic stuff appears in virtually every culture and society, before or after contact with Juedo-Christianity. You'd be far harder-pressed to come up with a society with no laws against theft than to come up with the alternative.
Now, for all these rules, some exceptions are allowed, depending on the society. "Do not kill...Unless they're Jews", to go back to the Nazi example. "Do not kill, unless it's your wife and she cheated on you". "Do not kill, unless they're from a lower social caste". "Do not kill, except for heretics". If we take today's society, the exceptions have gotten narrower. Let's take an example...The Afghanistan War (I'd take Iraq, but Afghanistan is less controversial). Now, just like any modern war, it had civilian casualties - collateral damage. Inevitable in warfare. Do our laws (well, American Law, since that's what we're talking about) prohibit killing under such circumstances? Nope. It's the permitted exception (I'd like to point out that I'm not trying to imply that the exceptions are always unjustified. The example of Afghanistan, for example, seems like it had sufficient justification to me).
What I'm trying to say is...Rules as basic as "don't lie, don't steal, don't kill" are borderline-universal in human ethics and legal systems - it's what exceptions are made that varies.

[StrangeWulf13]

He's got a point. A lot of societies have the same general rules for a lot of things, among them murder, theft, and lying. It's the specifics that seem to make all the difference, as you can talk trash about the President all you want here, but if you'd said one word against Saddam while living under his rule you'd disappear in the night.

Hell, the specifics are different even from state to state in our own country! In Florida, you can now shoot someone in self-defense in almost any circumstance and not be found guilty of murder. 'Course, you do have to give 'em fair warning I think. But in California, you'd probably at least get sued by the "victim's" family for killing them, even though it would've been you in the grave if you hadn't shot them.

You can keep the Big City politics; I'll take my heartland morals any day of the week.

[Sharuuk]

In Florida, you can now shoot someone in self-defense in almost any circumstance and not be found guilty of murder. 'Course, you do have to give 'em fair warning I think. But in California, you'd probably at least get sued by the "victim's" family for killing them, even though it would've been you in the grave if you hadn't shot them.

Actually you've always been able to defend yourself with deadly force here in Florida. The problem was the words "imminent and immediate threat of grave bodily injury or death" in the law. And ever the armchair quarterback with 20/20 hindsight, the DA could sit back in the comfort and safety of his air conditioned office and "calmly and rationally" go over a decision you had a split second to make. More often than not, if you had an anti-gun DA, you could guarentee to be indicted and quite possibly convicted of manslaughter at the least unless a grand jury gave you a no-bill.

The burden of proof was on you to prove that you acted reasonably under the circumstances......in other words you were considered guilty until you proved yourself innocent. And to add insult to injury, even if you were found to have acted totally within the law and justifiably killed or crippled your attacker, this POS could now sue you for damages and the fact that he attacked you in the first place was inadmissable as a defense!

How f**ked up is THAT?

The new law simply re-affirmed that you have the right to stand your ground and defend yourself wherever you have a legal right to be and are not forced to retreat by law. This is the extention of Florida's 'Castle Doctrine'....TTBOMK, with the exceptions of some of the more liberal South Florida counties, there has never been a State mandate to retreat from attack in your own home. Now you may defend yourself and other innocents from attack pretty much wherever you are. And I can find no mandate for "fair warning" before you defend yourself anywhere in the text of the law.

And the burden of proof has been shifted to the prosecution, as it should be, to prove that you did not act responsibly and reasonably rather than for you to prove that you did. You only need show that at the time of your actions, you were in reasonable fear for your life and safety. Part of this comes from what is known as "The Doctrine of Reasonable Man". It has also, thank God, ended the civil suits from perpretrators who got injured or their families if they got killed. MOF...I believe if you are injured, maimed, crippled or killed while in the commission of a felony, you no longer have any civil suit rights against the property or property owner. This piece of badly needed commom sense and fundamental fairness has been 25 years in coming.

However, if it is determined that you acted improperly and are convicted, then you are open to civil action as well.....and this I have no problem with.

Bottom line: If you attack someone here in Florida and get your ass shot off for your efforts...tough sh*t....you brought it on yourself.

S'aaruuk

[StrangeWulf13]

Aye, and I can only hope that some of the other red states pick it up as well! The criminals will have no place to go other than the blue states, and with any luck, the liberals and the crooks will kill each other off.

Just joking. But it's a lovely thought...

[Doink]

Aye, and I can only hope that some of the other red states pick it up as well! The criminals will have no place to go other than the blue states, and with any luck, the liberals and the crooks will kill each other off.

Just joking. But it's a lovely thought...

Wait, you're telling me that liberals and crooks are different? Well, this changes everything!

But seriously, I've been looking over this debate and there's one thing that jumps to mind. I have long been interestes in the card game known as Magic: The Gathering, although I have more fun looking at the cards than actually playing a game. Each of the five colors of magic has their own outlook on life, and it's this philosophy (which may be part of Wicca, I'm not sure) that has stuck to me more than any other.

As for the debate, I find it odd that both sides, Law and Good, are attributed to a single color, White. The reason? Both involve following a set of rules, whether they be moral or civil.

Now I'm not saying that White is the only color that is capable of 'good.' Far from it. All the colors (even Black!) are capable of 'good,' it just depends on what your accepted definition of 'good' is. However, the most widely accepted definition, which ties very heavily into religion, is in fact White by nature. I guess you can say that White has the power of both church AND state.

Oh, and if you're curious as to what the colors' dogmas are, you can find out at the following links:

White
Blue
Black
Red
Green

[Sharuuk]

Aye, and I can only hope that some of the other red states pick it up as well! The criminals will have no place to go other than the blue states, and with any luck, the liberals and the crooks will kill each other off.

Just joking. But it's a lovely thought...

MOF most of the other 34 states that now have concealed carry and particularly those with "shall issue" CCW laws patterned their laws after our own 1986 version. Florida's CCW law "template" is the single most widely copied CCW law in the nation........because it works, and works WELL.

And you're right...itIS a lovely thought!

S'aaruuk

[CasVeg]

As for the debate, I find it odd that both sides, Law and Good, are attributed to a single color, White.

White isn't exactly a paragon of good. It doesn't care one iota about individual rights. It readily supports things like socialism and fascism. White is the color of rules, community and self-sacrifice. It is not the color of good.

And, to tie this into the original topic, white readily supports actions such as Quentyn's censure. He hurt the community, after all, and must be punished.

[Doink]

White isn't exactly a paragon of good. It doesn't care one iota about individual rights. It readily supports things like socialism and fascism. White is the color of rules, community and self-sacrifice. It is not the color of good.

'Good' is a relative term, and each color has its own idea of what that should be.

Alright, so maybe I misunderstood the concept of 'good' in this arguement. I was thinking of religious morals, which is definitely White. Many people assume that White is 'good' because they have grouped the term with religion.

Am I correct in assuming that 'good' in this context means helping others?

[Sun tzu]

As for the debate, I find it odd that both sides, Law and Good, are attributed to a single color, White.

White isn't exactly a paragon of good. It doesn't care one iota about individual rights. It readily supports things like socialism and fascism. White is the color of rules, community and self-sacrifice. It is not the color of good.

And, to tie this into the original topic, white readily supports actions such as Quentyn's censure. He hurt the community, after all, and must be punished.

I would agree if he had had a better alternative. He had none - he chose the best course of actions. No punishment is justified in this case.

[StrangeWulf13]

I think CasVeg is speaking from the position of the elders or those of the "White" persuasion. Whether he truly believes in it himself or not I do not know, but I doubt it.

But yes, he did the best he could under the circumstances, and the elders just want to keep him under control. Let's hope he makes them choke on that "leash" they're offering...

[Kerry Skydancer]

Aye, and I can only hope that some of the other red states pick it up as well! The criminals will have no place to go other than the blue states, and with any luck, the liberals and the crooks will kill each other off.

Just joking. But it's a lovely thought...

MOF most of the other 34 states that now have concealed carry and particularly those with "shall issue" CCW laws patterned their laws after our own 1986 version. Florida's CCW law "template" is the single most widely copied CCW law in the nation........because it works, and works WELL.

And you're right...itIS a lovely thought!

S'aaruuk

And this is the advantage of the multiple-state system. Each state can try stuff, and when something works -well- they can all borrow it. And when something doesn't work, the others can -avoid- it. The CCW/shall issue is one of the former.

[TMLutas]

well, lessee.

Quentyn represents individual rights, autonomy, capitalism, self-determination, self-defense, and personal responsibility.... and the innate right of every individual to have the damn government leave him the hell alone. He is the free market alternative for individuals in distress, and represents the blunt fact that all free men are able to sleep at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Gilder represents government authority, bureaucracy, and the suppression of independent thought and action. He is willing, if not to break the law, then to stretch it all out of shape in order to stop a "threat" to his neatly ordered status quo... that "threat" being in the form of an individual who doesn't bend the knee to the nearest authority figure before taking action on behalf of his clients or himself. He believes that matters should always be "left to the authorities," even when said matters are obviously something that the authorities should not and cannot handle.

Only a left winger would have the pretentiousness-- and self delusion-- to claim that QUENTYN is the leftist.

Hm... I thought that bureaucracy, and the idea that people should adhere to authority were consertive ideals...

It is possible that either I am wrong, or the definitions have shifted. I am not sure. There is no way to get a definate definition without somebody placing their personal slant upon it.

The definitions have shifted. This is hardly even under dispute anymore. 18th century liberals are 21st century libertarians for the most part. Conservatives of that time don't even exist for the most part today though there are some remnants in Europe as well as the 3rd world. The two things that really warped the definitions were the American revolution which injected a new thought into liberalism, that when liberalism wins it should be conserved, and the communists who did their level best to hollow out the liberal idea and make it stand for social democracy (for a great example, look at what labourites did to the liberals in England) or even more radical forms of socialism.

[TMLutas]

Rich, landowners, at two am they seem the same.

Here's a random thought... Anyone who receives "welfare" or "dole" payments should lose the right to vote! After all, it's an obvious "conflict of interests" case when your continued income depends upon voting for your benefactor.
(Of course, social security payments and unemployment compensation wouldn't count, as they are merely one's own money being returned... Theoretically.)

Mew? Does that include anyone getting supplimental income? Subsidized housing? Financial aid? Government loans? Food stamps?

How about anyone that recieves a tax break or a refund from the government loses the right to vote; they're being influenced via financial matters as well... Doesn't that count as conflict of interest?

There are various forms of this idea floating around, the most reasonable of which is the variant where the subsidy is calculated and subtracted from your income. If the net is negative, you lose the franchise for the next year. This would include a government paycheck. That would mean no military vote but no civilian bureaucracy vote either.

I don't personally take a position on it. I think if it applied at all, it would be much better as a social taboo than enshrined in the law.

[Capnregex]

I've always thought that since the First Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws about religion, whether it is about its practice or the establishment of a state one... that meant that Congress should not even take religion into consideration during its decisions. To be more specific, while Congressmen can all have their own religious affiliation, they need to do what is best for America and the preservation of its freedoms regardless.

This is a common misconception.
The framers of the constitution were all very religious men.
They were all using their religious beliefs to guide them as they put the nation together.

The seperation of church and state was to avoid having the state control the church.., not the other way around.

We wouldn't have the constitution, ect without the influence of church on the process.

However, If you look at the worst sort of governments, they alwase try to control the *religion*..

K, I'm stopping there.

[TMLutas]

Mew? Does that include anyone getting supplimental income? Subsidized housing? Financial aid? Government loans? Food stamps?

I would say it should.

Not a single one of those things is a legitimate application of government power and money. NOT ONE. And it constitutes an obscene conflict of interest to expect a recipient of largesse to vote on the matter.

As one man drolly noted, the pigs will vote for whoever carries the slop bucket--- and comfortably forget about any inconvenient little slaughtering he does on the side.

So then, I should either quit college and do my job in retail working full time, (which isn't enough to pay for rent anywhere near here, and I can't leave the state at this time) or not vote.

Remeber, Ralph, there are those that use the programs for their stated purpose. I'm one of 'em. I need financial aid to pay for COMMUNITY college, and I doubt that I can ever afford anything beyond that.

I'm a reasonable, thinking individual. I actually try to see both sides of issues. I like to try and think things through. I try to make each decision based upon the decision at hand, not prior ones or extra baggage (I often fail, but I try.)

Yet, by your reasoning, I shouldn't vote.

There is a very good chance that if taxation weren't so heavy, there would be an awful lot more private scholarships. Private scholarships have the advantage of not depending on the whims of the politicians to fund them next year. They are generally funded out of the investment income from large donations from wealthy people. In the end, the goal is the same, increase the number of highly educated people so that parental economic circumstances do not lead to wasted talents who could have done great things if they only had been supported properly.

So, which would be better at accomplishing the common goal of an optimally educated populace, a state scholarship or a private one? And if the latter, what is the best way to shift from a system dominated by the former to one dominated by the latter?