J-SMITH69

not really

jinxy

The founding fathers ideologies were ineffective in that they were unable to be maintained by the general public. The constitution is also flawed in that it created the government that was effectively able to deviate from the stipulations laid out within; therefore, it can be argued that the constitution and the founding fathers are partially responsible for the state of the country at the current time. As the system they created provided the provisions to deviate from their originally intended value system. Agree with it or not, but what's happening today in our society is a result of our society.

Personally, I think all human systems are subject to decent and eventual corruption or collapse. I also think that there's no just way to alter the system in a relevant way that would stick with the general public and not come to a point where the original ideas were not brought to a point of eventual perversion. Hell, we even do it on a forum within a period of a few months.

People do not consensually agree to reason. And voting as a method to produce a consensually agreed upon reason in society, which is a manifestation of cultural relativism, is invalid at its very core regardless if it's regulated by law in a republic, or in a pure democracy. The constitutional merit of a given set of actions in the general publics mind are as equally valid as a fallacious argument presented by a politician.

So, anyway, what I'm getting at is if you don't have a legitimate solution as to what should be done to correct the laws in which we live under, what is the point of uniting people behind your cause? I'm really interested in the product that you're trying to get at. You've presented the argument for awhile, I'm sure most of us aren't interested in it anymore.

J-SMITH69

the system they created did not allow deviations.

corrupt people allow deviations, and corrupt people can never be stopped.

the only way we'd return to a "free country" is if the people wanted it. probably won't happen.

i'm holding out for a republic of alaska/idaho/texas. another CSA... etc...

jinxy

The system they created did not allow for deviations, yet deviations exist. That's a contradiction. Either they created a system that did not allow for deviations and no deviations exist, or they created a system that allowed for deviations and deviations exist.


They created a system in where corrupt people can come to power and make changes to the system; therefore, they created a system in that regardless of stipulations laid out by them, deviations were possible by those elected into office.

J-SMITH69

hooray for you. its impossible to create a system that cannot be corrupted.

and most of the things you see going on, have not resulted from "changes to the system" they have resulted from people simply ignoring it.

signorelli21

The other issue is that they (being our governing bodies) do not adhere to their own responsibilities to oversight and are also inclined to overlook provisions that were put in place to limit deviations, all types of government are going to be subject to deviations because of the nature of men in positions of power always seek to increase said powers.

Thomas pain wrote in the 1776 in his book "Common Sense" that " In england, the King is the law, if we are to become a truly free nation we must ensure that the Law becomes king"

To answer your question to RS, the only way to change conditions in our country is to have an educated population, its commonly held that in a democracy the minority is a slave to the whims of the majority, so therefore if the majority of this country is ignorant of the policies set in place by our government, it can be concluded that the people elected to that govenment will represent the concerns of an ignorant population, I.E Abortion, Gay Rights, the War on Terror, etc.

J-SMITH69

our country is not a democracy.

jinxy

I see that as a more articulated, consequent version of what I had posted, rather than another individual issue.

That's sort of just an irrelevant appeal to authority. It also happens to be a very subjective quote. What exactly is "truly free" and how does something become that by living under the law.


Only is a universal quantifier. In an argument, you want to try to make a conscious effort to not use them. As when you do, you create an argument that's very hard to prove, yet very easy to disprove. He only needs to come up with one example to the contrary to prove his point, while you're obligated to come up with every solution possible and prove them wrong. For example, your statement says "the only way to change conditions in our country is to have an educated population." I need only to say that conditions can be changed within the country by having an undereducated population in order to prove your argument wrong. Their absoluteness sounds cool, but that absoluteness will also end up being your undoing.

bakercivic95

RS: ever come across zeitgeistmovie.com for anyone who doesnt understand money and corruption, this is somewhat useful and interesting... only the first hour is of any relevance, the rest is just hippy foo foo ----.

also search endgame or builderburg group.

Im not a conspiricy theorist but I am an open minded individule who likes to look at all aspects to understand the great institution which is the US government.

Tom-Guy

You ONLY argue with rawr if you know for a fact he's wrong.