Page 1 of 2 [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

27 Oct 2014, 10:24 am

AdamK wrote:
Dillogic wrote:
How about letting people that don't want to be a part of the state be free of it?

I can't remember signing any documents saying I want to be a part of society/the state, and I'm pretty sure it can't be argued that it's some form of natural unspoken law.

The only ethical solution to the imperfect governing systems is to give people the choice.

You want to live in a democracy or whatever? Cool. You don't? That's also cool.

(Checks and balances are a joke in the end, as the majority can outvote them. That's why democracy sucks.)


Living outside the system is easy. Go live alone in a cabin in the woods. Make your own rules. Problem solved. Most people, including me, don't have the strength to do it though. We don't need to scarp the consitution, just the bits that don't work in the 21st century. Sadly I'm not sure that's possible. We should at least acknowledge though that it's a document of its time.


I don't see what "bits" of it don't work in the 21st century. If we start scrapping bits of it based on what is or isn't in vogue at the time then why even have a constitution at all?


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


AdamK
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jun 2013
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 44

27 Oct 2014, 4:54 pm

Raptor wrote:
AdamK wrote:
Dillogic wrote:
How about letting people that don't want to be a part of the state be free of it?

I can't remember signing any documents saying I want to be a part of society/the state, and I'm pretty sure it can't be argued that it's some form of natural unspoken law.

The only ethical solution to the imperfect governing systems is to give people the choice.

You want to live in a democracy or whatever? Cool. You don't? That's also cool.

(Checks and balances are a joke in the end, as the majority can outvote them. That's why democracy sucks.)


Living outside the system is easy. Go live alone in a cabin in the woods. Make your own rules. Problem solved. Most people, including me, don't have the strength to do it though. We don't need to scarp the consitution, just the bits that don't work in the 21st century. Sadly I'm not sure that's possible. We should at least acknowledge though that it's a document of its time.


I don't see what "bits" of it don't work in the 21st century. If we start scrapping bits of it based on what is or isn't in vogue at the time then why even have a constitution at all?


How about the fact that it doesn't list a right to privacy as a specific right that Americans should have? One possible reason why the founding fathers didn?t think listing that right was necessary is that the internet didn't exist when they wrote it. Or how about "The right to bear arms" being written before the exists of automatic weapons? Would the founding fathers have been so vague about what type of arms American citizens can keep if the dazzling array of guns we have now had existed back then?



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

27 Oct 2014, 7:03 pm

Raptor wrote:
AdamK wrote:
Dillogic wrote:
How about letting people that don't want to be a part of the state be free of it?

I can't remember signing any documents saying I want to be a part of society/the state, and I'm pretty sure it can't be argued that it's some form of natural unspoken law.

The only ethical solution to the imperfect governing systems is to give people the choice.

You want to live in a democracy or whatever? Cool. You don't? That's also cool.

(Checks and balances are a joke in the end, as the majority can outvote them. That's why democracy sucks.)


Living outside the system is easy. Go live alone in a cabin in the woods. Make your own rules. Problem solved. Most people, including me, don't have the strength to do it though. We don't need to scarp the consitution, just the bits that don't work in the 21st century. Sadly I'm not sure that's possible. We should at least acknowledge though that it's a document of its time.


I don't see what "bits" of it don't work in the 21st century. If we start scrapping bits of it based on what is or isn't in vogue at the time then why even have a constitution at all?


AdamK wrote:
How about the fact that it doesn't list a right to privacy as a specific right that Americans should have? One possible reason why the founding fathers didn?t think listing that right was necessary is that the internet didn't exist when they wrote it.

I think privacy would fall under the 4th amendment, and if not then use the 9th as a catch-all. The right to privacy is the right to privacy with or without the internet. If the government tramples that basic right then your beef is with the government, not the constitution they are sworn to uphold.

Quote:
Or how about "The right to bear arms" being written before the exists of automatic weapons? Would the founding fathers have been so vague about what type of arms American citizens can keep if the dazzling array of guns we have now had existed back then?

It should stand to reason that the founding fathers were familiar with the evolution of firearms even up to their time in history and from that assume that the weapon would continue to evolve. The people you should be worried about instead of the hardware don't give a s**t about any right rights, yours or theirs.
We can't re-write the constitution every time someone invents a better mousetrap.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

27 Oct 2014, 10:46 pm

AdamK wrote:
Go live alone in a cabin in the woods. Make your own rules. Problem solved.


I'd still be bound by the laws of the land. If I make a machine gun and touch it off in the middle of nowhere, and someone hears it (you know, because there's always someone around, no matter how far you go), here comes da law. If I want to make homemade explosives and do the same, there you go.



AdamK
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jun 2013
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 44

28 Oct 2014, 6:32 am

Dillogic wrote:
AdamK wrote:
Go live alone in a cabin in the woods. Make your own rules. Problem solved.


I'd still be bound by the laws of the land. If I make a machine gun and touch it off in the middle of nowhere, and someone hears it (you know, because there's always someone around, no matter how far you go), here comes da law. If I want to make homemade explosives and do the same, there you go.


I suppose you are right there but let's go back to the original idea. I was responding to the possability that people should be given the right to live outside the system if they want. You have just demonstrated why this can't be allowed. It would effect the lives of those who want to live under America's current system of law and government as well as those who don't.

Raptor, you've also made some good points. Being not American I will have to do further research into what you've said (or typed anyway) to give a decent counter-argument. Or maybe we should just call it a draw, so to speak? I'm not afraid to admit that I can be wrong.