Thread: Socialism Works!

Originally Posted by xman

You are mistaken. Your liberty is granted to you by men whether you would like to think of it that way or not...

X

I'm sure George III held similar sentiments...

Originally Posted by honedright

I'm sure George III held similar sentiments...

Actually George was a monarchist (obviously) and believed that there was an invisible man who imbued him with the responsibility of endowing rights.

Originally Posted by xman

You are mistaken. Your liberty is granted to you by men whether you would like to think of it that way or not. Here in Canada though, the courts have the final say over governments in their struggle to circumvent rights since we have a Declaration of Rights and Freedoms attached to our constitution which they consult.

X

No sir I am not mistaken, nor am I Canadian. It would really suck to think I am dependent on others for my own well being. In order to avoid the religous debate that would ensue I will simply say that I much prefer the love of God and the government that has been instituted here in the U.S. than the arbitrary fancies of some self seeking politician.

From Bastiat "The Law" -

The Results of Legal Plunder:

"It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.


What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.


In the first place, it erases from everyone's conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.


No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.


The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them."


Does this explain why some accept, or at least tolerate, socialism?

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

... It would really suck to think I am dependent on others for my own well being. ...

'Suck' it up. We are a pack animal. We gather in collective groups and liberties as well as responsibilities are agreed upon by the group. That Declaration of Independence is a document written by men, no different from any other document written by men. It is 'men' who will be the arbiter of your rights and responsibilities in enforcing that or any other document. Just like Soilant Green, 'It's people"!

X

Originally Posted by Bruno

And perhaps the best solution is somewhere in the middle?
The rights of the individual cannot always trump the decisions of the government.

For example: you could argue that since the 2nd is not specific, you should be allowed the right to bear thermonuclear weapons. And the government would be wise to tell you to sod off. And if you were trying to build one, they'd be wise to throw you in jail because there is no reason why you should own a thermonulear weapon.

Despite the fact that you can argue it's an individual right allowed by the constituation, it is for the good of the whole that individuals don't have them. If no good can come from something, then the government has a case for restricting you, as indicated by the previous example.

Bruno, the second amendment is probably not a good example for your point. As a point of fact no serious argument could be crafted as a legal basis to support the idea that citizens have the right to weapon's of mass destruction. The second amendment's intent was to keep weapons of self defense in the hands of private non-military citizens and strip the federal government of the ability to take those weapons away. No understanding of that amendment's intent could broaden it's scope to what you are talking about and I don't believe anyone would seriously try to make it. (Apologies, as a student of constitutional law I just had to make that point) :-)

Hope that helps.

Regards,
EL

I was actually laughing when I read this thread!

A couple of questions:
1: How many of you have actually been in scandinavia (Norway, Sweden & Denmark)?
2: If democracy is a government elected by the people in that country, wouldn't it be a fair measurement of democracy to see how many % of it's people actually bothers to vote.
3: Another measurement of how good a country is to live in would be how many inmates it's prisons have: The United States has 5% of the world's population and 23.6% of the world's prison population.

Don't take me wrong here, I have lived in the US for over a year now and love it, but I have always been puzzled by the extreme socialist-fear over here.

Originally Posted by xman

Your liberty is granted to you by men whether you would like to think of it that way or not

Then you will have to also disagree with the notion that the rights are inalienable. They can only be inalienable if the Giver of rights (the only One who has power to take them away) is also the Creator of them to whom the rights were given. You will also have to disagree that the truth of that is something you hold as self-evident. Someone said it well: "Once abolish the God and the government becomes the God." Of course I could give up those rights myself, but regardless of how men or government attempt to limit my free exercising of those rights, they still remain my rights.

The greatness in the foundation of how the US federal government was constructed to regard our rights is that it was created as an agency to protect those certain rights rather than restrict them or take them away. In so many societies the law is designed to tell you what the men in power say your rights are (whereas we hold certain truths to be self-evident) and such law is meant to keep the peace among the people by restricting individuals from exercising their own rights. But in the US your rights are protected not because the government is making sure you don't become too free but because the people who commissioned the government to protect your rights are making sure that neither I nor the government come along and hinder your free exercise.

If US society continues to break down along the current trend lines to the point where the majority of the voters no longer hold those truths to be self-evident, then what you said in the bit I quoted above will increasingly be how those in power will approach, treat, and devalue the people and their Constitution

I do not disagree. The only thing separating us is the belief that such rights are granted by an invisible fairy and that the application of those rights is divinely granted to those in the positions of power to grant and judge. I accept that all those words in legal texts and constitutions were conceived and written by people and can only be interpreted and enforced by people.

Originally Posted by xman

The only thing separating us is the belief that such rights are granted by an invisible fairy and that the application of those rights is divinely granted to those in the positions of power to grant and judge

Ah then we are not separated at all! I too do not believe that such rights are granted by an invisible fairy After all, it is self-evident that invisible fairies do not create anything!