If our Constitution made liberalism, in effect, illegal what should we do with them?

not really they hated liberal violence so much that they used only excise taxes which could be avoided by simply not buying the taxed items. Welcome to your first lesson in American History.

 

1) in our system a President does not run the govt and often not even the executive branch!
2) in our system the independents decide election so budgets reflect what they want , not the president 1+1=2
3) if you remember conservative/libertarian, from Aristotle forward, is for freedom and liberal socialist commie, ever since Plato, is for govt you will have the basis for understanding American political debate and all of human history.

 

maybe not, but certainly the case can be made that they should not be allowed to hold office-right?

 

yes but then the Nazis were very much the liberals of their time. isn't thinking fun???

 

Obviously some are better at it than others.

 

oppression of some groups predicated on their beliefs is required eg Nazis, Muslim bombers, libcommies etc.. Now do you understand?

 

if I said they had cars I will pay you $10,000. Bet???

 

sounds like the conservative/libertarian position with which I agree!!

 

not sure what you mean?

 

1. The president is responsible.
2. no **** sticks to conservatives, now its independents fault.
3. seriously? fallacious bullshit wrapped up in bumpersticker "philosophy" is still fallacious bullshit.

 

REFER to the OP. I understand that such responses are indicative of something. Sadly it seems you are wholly unaware.

 

And I never said you said that; now you're being silly, and I know it's on purpose.

 

Many liberals/democrats would agree with that too.

Still, they might have a different view about how much govt is necessary to avoid living in a jungle. Jungle is the result of full-fledge Darwinism that is being called for by a number of conservatives/libertarians on this forum.

 

Unsupportable nonsense, especially in that 336,000 of these deaths, the person chose to die.

 

Except it wasn’t because it includes things like the commerce clause, the supremacy clause, making treaties part of the Supreme Law of the Land, etc.

 

No, they founded the Democratic-Republican Party, which dropped the “Republican” from its name a few years later.

The modern Republican Party (founded 1854) grew out of the Whigs, who in turn grew out of the Federalists.

If you are this bad with basic American political history, how fake you claim to have any kind of authority on this topic?

 

Are you not aware that the ideologies of the parties have shifted over time? Jefferson founded the Democratic-Republican Party which dropped “Republican” from its name a few years later.

 

And you can avoid income taxes by not having taxable income. Congratulations!

 

I agree with the majority of what you say.

To fine tune a bit -

To the question of "Legitimacy of Authority". The question is what is the legitimate authority of Gov't. Limited Gov't power means that Gov't has no authority outside this legitimate purview.

The formulation of the declaration of independence is founded in Classical Liberalism. The reason for invoking the "creator" is specifically to put individual liberty above the legitimate authority of Gov't - to limit Gov't power with respect to essential liberty.

As you infer - the legit Gov't authority is protection from direct harm - murder, rape, theft and so on. This is the justification given in classical liberalism for why people would give some authority power to punish.

At the same time - "no man wants to be ruled over by another.

The social contract - construct by which Gov't gets its authority from "we the people" - dictates how much power that authority (Gov't) is to have.

The point here is that the Gov't is to have ZERO power to make law messing with individual liberty "of its own volition".

It is the people that give power to the Gov't and not the reverse. The purpose of Gov't - with respect to individual liberty- is to punish those who would violate codes of conduct related to direct harm.

It has ZERO legitimate authority/power (or is supposed to have) to make any law outside this legitimate purview that messes with individual liberty. FULL STOP.

If it wants to make such law it is to appeal for a change to the Social Contract = appeal to we the people for permission. The bar - as was described previously is not 50+1. There is no Simple Majority Mandate.

The bar is overwhelming majority - at least 2/3rds. Simple Majority Mandate and/or 50+1 is referred to as "Tyranny of the Majority" in both Classical Liberalism and Republicanism.

 

I agree, same is true of Christians that want to get rid of all liberals, violent religious fanatics go to jail, that is not a religious freedom

http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/24/l...igned-up-on-tea-party-page-and-quoted-hitler/

"And in another, Houser cheered Muslim extremists for defending their religion.

“Yes it’s true, Muslims are alone in shutting down liberals that mock their God. They have my complete Christian respect.”"

 

@james M sorry you don't care enough about the meaning of the Constitution to bother explaining it to others who seem to care more, and understand it isn't just a simple yes or no.

The Founding Fathers wrote long letters that fill books on the debates and issues.

Why you keep attacking discussions as negative is beyond me.

I welcome them.

Whenever I talk with fellow liberals or secular thinkers, it takes a lot more to explain what is MEANT by the Constitution or by Christian teachings than just using "symbolism" to keep it short.

@james M it can take 5-10 years to finish one of these discussions.

If you can't handle it, let @Giftedone and me discuss with ourselves and others who can handle the truth, and the process it takes to resolve issues and reach an understanding.

You can be the little chickens that come and eat of the bread
after the Little Red Hens do all the work to bake it.

I guess you are one who enjoys sausage, but doesn't want to see it being made!

Wait your turn, but don't yell at the cooks in the kitchen if you have no idea what it takes to get the job done.

Cover your eyes and ears, don't watch or listen.

You could accidentally learn something, and that might blow your mind.
I'll stick with people who are already open minded and don't mind working out conflicts. Sorry you are not one who can take this.

 

Dear @Giftedone
1. I disagree with the purpose of God to put individuals above govt. The purpose of recognizing a central God is to put all people as equals under the same source of all of us. otherwise we fight as tribes and put one person's authority above another's. It is to PREVENT individuals from getting selfish and putting one group's interest above another. For example, when Jesus pointed to all having one "Father" that was to answer to people who were competing for social rank, boasting who was of one family or father or another. So instead of judging power by that, the purpose is to remember NONE of us has the position to judge one person as better or worse than another. That isn't for any human on earth, but is for God alone, none of us can speak for God so none of us is worthy to impose our judgment on anyone else.

So the most we can do is AGREE to contracts or terms between us. And let that stand for the members or parties to a contract who AGREE to those terms. Thus Consent of the Governed is the basis of social contracts and laws, and that is what our Govt is supposed to be based on.

NOT abusing Govt to force one person or groups opinion on others.

Since the Constitution proper, only stated the 18 or so enumerated powers given to Govt, the Bill of Rights was added as a condition to passing the Constitution so that rights of individuals would be clearly defined in the laws. Again this isn't to put individuals above anyone else, including govt, but to prevent the COLLECTIVE authority of govt from abusing any individual that is supposed to be PROTECTED thereunder.

2. As for "protecting" against harm, the people under a contract are supposed to respect the laws as well. The problem is if we don't teach people and have agreement with all people on terms of this contract, how do we expect people to follow it and comply.

The Govt is not supposed to have any authority outside of what we as individuals agree to use it for. So we aren't supposed to 'rely on govt to go punish someone' as if the power is coming from govt. Govt is just the venue by which we the people AGREE to enforce our contracts and laws among ourselves that we are SUPPOSED to agree on in advance. We are supposed to be enforcing our own contracts so we are the authority of govt. We can be equal in this if (a) we all teach equal knowledge and access to laws and legal authority and process (b) we respect each other as equals and don't pit one group against another to beat each other down by size or power and abuse govt this way as is happening now.

Again the part about God you seem to have repeated twice, and which I do not agree with is using God to put individuals above Govt, vs. using God as a central reference so all people are equal and none of us is God.

"Legitimacy of govt' is based on consent not on God based beliefs, or people would not be equal. We don't have equal beliefs about God, but we do believe in our own consent and dissent. We believe and can prove to ourselves what we agree with or not agree with, so that is the basis.

We just don't have equal means of expressing or protecting/defending or representing our consent or dissent, and that's what is making us unequal.

Even using Govt as central authority, this works when the parties CONSENT to it, and fails when we feel threatened that another group or interest is abusing Govt to impose their beliefs over ours.

So the key is to agree what to use Govt for, and then there's no problem.
Keep it out of beliefs where we disagree, and find ways to exercise our programs separately instead of railroading things through Govt that other groups don't believe in paying for. And we will agree on the lawful use of Govt for public interest.

RE: It is the people that give power to the Gov't and not the reverse. The purpose of Gov't - with respect to individual liberty- is to punish those who would violate codes of conduct related to direct harm.

I agree that the authority of Govt is based on the consent of the peopel governed. I believe Govt agents such as military and police are AUTHORIZED to provide security. But no, the point is NOT "TO PUNISH". If we the people to terms of punishment, and we AGREE to dispense that through govt, that is what we use govt for but it is not the purpose. I would say public security is the main role of govt, not punishment for wrongs that is a consequence.

We happen to agree to give that function to Govt to do as a central authority, but that is only to the extent that 'individuals agree to it'

That's why we have issues today of enforcing immigration laws or have sanctuary cities, because people don't all agree. So govt cannot even punish people without consent of those represented.

 

Thanks @FreshAir
Frankly I find both major parties discriminating against the other.
One side trying to push prolife beliefs or progun,
and the other pushing prochoice or antigun,
unless they support laws and rulings both sides agree on,
they end up abridging the equal free exercise of the other's beliefs.

I would call for a separation of taxes and policies by party,
on issues of BELIEF that govt cannot force people to change.

If we allow people to organize their own policies to pay for by party,
then only where we AGREE across the board can be public policy
that is neutral and equally inclusive of all input and interests
represented, including all groups. Anything we disagree on by belief
should be kept separate, where only members of that belief agree to be under and fund that policy.

@james M is this short enough for you to say yay or nay?
Do you agree or disagree with the above? Thanks!

 

This is not what I had inferred - nor the founders. Some will try and claim that the use of the term creator - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - has some kind of theocratic implications.

My point was that it did/does not. The purpose of this statement was to put these unalienable rights "Above/out of reach/ beyond" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

This was to put limits on Gov't power -to restrict the legitimate authority of Gov't. This is one of the main purposes of the DOI - to give what "illegitimate means"

We then end up on the same page.

"none of us can speak for God so none of us is worthy to impose our judgment on anyone else"

This sums up the social contract and the main teaching of Jesus in one sentence. Matt 7:12 - " do unto others as you would have done to you - (treat others as you would be treated) for this is the rule that sums up the Law and the Prophets" The Golden Rule.

In a nutshell - If you don't want others forcing their personal and religious beliefs on you through physical violence (Law) - then do not do this to others.

The social contract - as described by Locke - basically states that when two people make an agreement - I will not kill you and your family if you do not kill me or my family - the parties then have a so called "Moral Obligation" to uphold their end of the bargain.

Why ? Because if you do not want others killing you then you have a moral obligation not kill others. Judge not lest you be Judged, Let ye who is without sin cast the first rock , love neighbor as self, take log out of own eye before trying to pick speck out of brothers - and so on.

Jesus restated this rule numerous times in different ways because he knew the people would not get it on the first crack

So here we have this happy union between Secularism and Religion. This rule is also the basis for the founding principles. There should then be no disagreement from either side yet - the religious right (and Republican Establishment) as does the Blue Establishment.

2) protection from harm. The derivation of the social contract - as per classical liberalism - is on the basis of protection from harm. That is the purpose for giving some authority power.

The enlightenment thinkers proposed a society with no law - anarchy like way way back before society was significantly structured. People naturally formed groups for a few reasons. One is social but the other is protection from harm - strength in numbers. The group affords protection that living solo does not.

Over time - codes of conduct develop. It does not do one much good to be protected from external harm if you are not protected from internal harm - harm from someone within the group.

At the same time - a code of conduct does not do much good if there is no punishment for violators. The group then agrees to create some authority and give that authority the power to punish. At the same time "no person wants to be ruled over by another" - it was recognized that the power of this authority should be extremely limited ... Only to acts which are directly injurious to others - murder, rape, theft and so on.

This is the basis for the social contract. We agree - OK .. we are going to give some authority power but, not unlimited power. That power should be extremely limited.

Now regardless of what I think or what you think - The founders wanted essential liberty to be outside the legitimate authority of Gov't.

Gov't has ZERO "Legitimate" power to - of its own volition - to mess with essential liberty. If it wants to make law messing with individual liberty it must appeal to the people and get overwhelming majority approval. If it does not do this it is acting illegitimately according to the founding principles - principles on which law and the Constitution are to be interpreted.

 

I am not a Liberal. I oppose Atheism. I also oppose

Most Suicide perpetrators were not of sound mind to make such choice.

How can Christians who respect the Old Testament put a stumbling block in front of the blind?