windcatcher
New Member
Sometimes it is better for discussion to just skip over what isn't relevant or bizarre. But when its presented in the OP, it can be ignored or it can be challenged by other opinions which may help the poster to get a better understanding of his own position.
Here we have two people who seem to be agreed and one of them opened the thread. I have no clue why either takes the position which he does or what commentary, or discussions with others, or past experience, have brought each to his position....
Neither of them, imo, knows what he's talking about.
Bill:
However, when government exceeds its boundaries and imposes its own controls and regulations upon the people by regulating their industry; binding their talents and abilities; establishing license and permits and fines upon their businesses; imposing its own contracts to replace the honor or reputation of their word; controlling or preventing the use of resources which they possess; separating them from their property and earnings; interfering with their choices to prioritize their own use of resources within their own community and address the problems of charity, crime, education, etc.; and taxes those who work or have gain to distribute it to others regardless of merit; or creates laws and regulations which give unfair advantage to the affluent who purchase their advantage by political 'endowments' against the smaller competitor who has little margin to contest the advantage or challenge a preferential enforcement against them: It has skewed the bell curve, and created difficulties beyond the control of its people.
Bill:
Both statements, though 'catchy', are wrong.
It is ignorance which is the opiate of the people.
And its opposite.... it is the arrogance of those who think they know everything who make judgements that they know what is best for the people.
As for 'excuses, people who live free without judgement, don't usually make them. When we start imposing our judgements upon others.... or the law 'imposes' upon an individual who breaks it..... then are the excuses made.
The law is a righteous judge when it is morally sound and the people are constrained to honor the boundaries which give equal protection to all and when people are fairly judged. But the judgements of people concerning the 'shoulds' of others is seldom founded in information beyond that of their own experience or their limited vision or observation. Often times the judgements we pass upon others is very generalized and broad, even when we know of individuals for whom the judgement would be a mistake. But we express our opinions often as judgements with a broad brush without fairly acknowledging the exceptions.
Bill:
and
The second, perhaps you reference to the 2nd amendment. If your confronted with a gun and you have none, you have no equalizer or chance..... and it matters not what kind of shot you might have. The dead have no position on your bell curve.
If you have a gun and are confronted with a gun.... unless you give away your reluctance to use or your ignorance to handle.... you cannot predict the outcome; It might even end in a draw, where neither of you shoot... and you each walk away.
Eric:
Just a bunch of spiritualizing gobbly gook!
Either God is sovereign or He isn't.
Either the people who established our country and penned our foundational documents, kept His authority in mind as over each person or they didn't.
To acknowledge the authority of God as an obligation of every person to His sovereignty, did not require an agreement of religious doctrine or practice or exercise of belief, to form a government which is based upon a moral people creating a law by which they govern themselves..... of, by, and for the people.
God was recognized in terms of creator, providence, 'nature's God', etc. It was expected that by such broad terms, people would recognize their agreement to mutual civility and law by whatever concept they had of his authority in respect to their varying religions.
It is not narcissistic to acknowledge the truth. We have had the best form of government a morally kept people could ever have. It is narcissistic to think it is still so without acknowledging how we have failed in action and responsibility to maintain it..... and narcissistic to think we can keep it without doing some serious repairs.
Here we have two people who seem to be agreed and one of them opened the thread. I have no clue why either takes the position which he does or what commentary, or discussions with others, or past experience, have brought each to his position....
Neither of them, imo, knows what he's talking about.
Bill:
A 'political/economic system' is called by various names, i.e. government, community, society. The ideal government's purpose is to provide law and a structure of justice which enforces boundaries by which a free people may fully exercise their liberties without crossing the lines which hurt or infringe upon the rights of others. Additionally, the purpose of government is to establish protections for it own people against enemies from within or without, which would deprive its people of their property, resources, or restraint of their abilities, or attack their borders or their governmental sovereignty, or present a danger to their lives. Under these liberal conditions.... as established by the constitution (not the term 'liberal' as the term is used today) a people and their economy might form a correctly shaped bell curve which is reflective more of the industry and ambitions of individuals regardless of their birth into or without an inherited 'advantage'.The purpose of every political/economic system is to divide the existing wealth pie......... there will always be a top ten percent and a bottom ten percent of the curve.
However, when government exceeds its boundaries and imposes its own controls and regulations upon the people by regulating their industry; binding their talents and abilities; establishing license and permits and fines upon their businesses; imposing its own contracts to replace the honor or reputation of their word; controlling or preventing the use of resources which they possess; separating them from their property and earnings; interfering with their choices to prioritize their own use of resources within their own community and address the problems of charity, crime, education, etc.; and taxes those who work or have gain to distribute it to others regardless of merit; or creates laws and regulations which give unfair advantage to the affluent who purchase their advantage by political 'endowments' against the smaller competitor who has little margin to contest the advantage or challenge a preferential enforcement against them: It has skewed the bell curve, and created difficulties beyond the control of its people.
Bill:
Karl Marx had a similar saying, "Religion is the opiate of the people."In other words, politics is the opiate of the people
Both statements, though 'catchy', are wrong.
It is ignorance which is the opiate of the people.
And its opposite.... it is the arrogance of those who think they know everything who make judgements that they know what is best for the people.
As for 'excuses, people who live free without judgement, don't usually make them. When we start imposing our judgements upon others.... or the law 'imposes' upon an individual who breaks it..... then are the excuses made.
The law is a righteous judge when it is morally sound and the people are constrained to honor the boundaries which give equal protection to all and when people are fairly judged. But the judgements of people concerning the 'shoulds' of others is seldom founded in information beyond that of their own experience or their limited vision or observation. Often times the judgements we pass upon others is very generalized and broad, even when we know of individuals for whom the judgement would be a mistake. But we express our opinions often as judgements with a broad brush without fairly acknowledging the exceptions.
Bill:
Stalin was a ruthless dictator who overtook the leadership, by thugs and by default of a people unable to unite and hold out for a more practical solution for the establishment of government. He killed nearly everyone who had enough mastery of knowledge or were in positions of trust or reputation which might have rallied the people to form a better government or who might have challenged his own unlawfulness. There was no bell curve then after his genocide and purges and, after many changes, there is no bell curve now.But Stalin and his friends didn't stand in lines. Many party workers did not stand in lines. The top 10% didn't.
and
The first is very and sadly telling how unappreciative you are and ignorant your position, as you exercise your right... you deny having any concept of it.I deny the concept of individual rights. There will always be someone else quicker on the draw, a better shot.
The second, perhaps you reference to the 2nd amendment. If your confronted with a gun and you have none, you have no equalizer or chance..... and it matters not what kind of shot you might have. The dead have no position on your bell curve.
If you have a gun and are confronted with a gun.... unless you give away your reluctance to use or your ignorance to handle.... you cannot predict the outcome; It might even end in a draw, where neither of you shoot... and you each walk away.
Eric:
Still, the trick is, that while individuals aren't better than each other, it is certain individuals who were able to create this system that is better. Or God was on their side. That basically still implies they are better, corporately. Same thing, in the self-exalting human ego. It's called collective narcissism. And using God does not make it right.
For that raises the question whether God really was behind them. With that rationale, the conquest and colonialism always end up becoming justified, because God was guiding it and "blessing" them. I don't see where that was.....etc.
Just a bunch of spiritualizing gobbly gook!
Either God is sovereign or He isn't.
Either the people who established our country and penned our foundational documents, kept His authority in mind as over each person or they didn't.
To acknowledge the authority of God as an obligation of every person to His sovereignty, did not require an agreement of religious doctrine or practice or exercise of belief, to form a government which is based upon a moral people creating a law by which they govern themselves..... of, by, and for the people.
God was recognized in terms of creator, providence, 'nature's God', etc. It was expected that by such broad terms, people would recognize their agreement to mutual civility and law by whatever concept they had of his authority in respect to their varying religions.
It is not narcissistic to acknowledge the truth. We have had the best form of government a morally kept people could ever have. It is narcissistic to think it is still so without acknowledging how we have failed in action and responsibility to maintain it..... and narcissistic to think we can keep it without doing some serious repairs.