From: Michael Lorrey (retroman@turbont.net)
Date: Thu Apr 01 1999 - 22:29:25 MST
joe dees wrote:
> > The answer is not to rebel against a democratic system - it is to encourage
> the more
> > rational people to get off their bitching and moaning asses and use the system
> to vote in >saner policies and politicians.
>
> First you decry that there are no acceptable Republicans anymore, then you say
> we must work through the system. If the system excludes those that represent
> your sentiments, then you have the Constitutional right to rebel against that
> government, by any means necessary. I want a system that knows inherently to
> stay away from my wallet. I shouldn't have to bribe some slimeballs to make sure
> it happens. I might as well pay taxes then.
>
> You have the constitutional right to either run yourself, and see how many voters share your sentiments enough to vote for you, or to find and support candidates who do share your sentiments.
Why should I when it is impossible for a non-celebrity to make it as a third party candidate. The two parties have written the rules for the electoral system, which slant the field in their direction. The 'campaign finance reform' issue is nothing but a continual tug of war between which party gains more from the existing system. It is not intended to allow private citizens to be able to run for office. I am on the board of directors of my local fish and game association, and that is about as political as I would like to get.
> That is the rebellious and revolutionary means supplied by the same constitution which houses the 2nd Amendment (the overthrowing an unjust government part is in the Declaration of Independence).
Actually the preamble of the Consitution implies the same thing.
> The remarkable thing about our form of government is that it is perpetually evolving in response to the expressed will of the people. It cannot do so perfectly (utopias are ideal), but it must do so adequately (to forstall dystopia-inspired uprisings).
satisfaction with the status quo only leads to more of the same.
> The means by which it accomplishes this is the interplay between the popular vote and the constitution. The moment you have a multiplicity of people living in close proximity whose freedoms may conflict, and it is wished that all shall enjoy all freedoms which do not interfere with the exercise of the same freedoms by others (and where freedoms collide, the conflict should be resolved by equal and proportional compromise), it is necessary to have a document which codifies these freedoms and their order of precedence, and which prevents a majoritarian tyranny from usurping minority rights; this requires a constitution. The general language of this document must be interpreted to apply to particular cases; this requires a judiciary.
The judiciary is to defend the standards that are set in the constitution, not to twist, bend, and hallucinate new meanings from the words, or to decide which words it is ok to ignore.
> Individual bullies and bully groups must be deterred from trampling on the freedoms of their fellows; this requires an executive.
Except when the executive is the one doing the trampeling. Who watches the watchers?
> The document must be updated to evolve with changing sociocultural and technological realities; this requires a legislative. Finally, the people who occupy these positions must be fairly chosen; this requires free and democratic elections. It has been said that our form of government is the worst there is, with the exception of any other which has been tried. Given the situation as I have described it (and I trust that it is a fair description), exactly with what would you replace it, and why and how would your replacement function better than what we've got, if we'll only work with it (notice that the law of club and fang alternative of NO government is intellectually feasible only to pimply-faced adolescent idealist utopians who have not yet abandoned their starry-eyed Randian pubescence in the face of a reality of which they have as of yet inadequate experience).
My big peeve with the problems in the system now is that the founding fathers had definite ideas about what the words in the Constitution meant (we can see it is so in much of their other writings), but they did not include a glossary in the document, because they were shortsighted and had no idea that the meanings of the words could change so drastically, because society was so stable then that the meanings of words had not changed since before Shakespeare.
They also did not understand the concepts of disinformation, newspeak, and doubletalk and how they could be used to undermine the Constitution.
Constitutional word a)old meaning b) new meaning
or phrase
"well regulated" a) trained and skilled b) restricted or prohibited
by excessive laws
"shall not be infringed" a) not even slightly restricted b) whatever the court decides
it means
"general welfare" a) stable economic development b) socialist command
nationalized economy
"no standing army" a) no full time professional army b) they aren't living in
YOUR house without
paying you
"not support establishment of state religion"
a) no official government religion
b) nobody can even have a relgious thought on
government property
--
TANSTAAFL!!!
Michael Lorrey, President
Lorrey Systems
------------------------------------------------------------
mailto:mike@lorrey.com
------------------------------------------------------------
"A society which trades freedom for some measure of security
shall wind up with neither." -----Benjamin Franklin
"The tree of Liberty should be watered from time to time
with the blood of tyrants and patriots."
-----Thomas Jefferson
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security
of a Free State, the Right of the People to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed." -----US Constitution,
2nd Amendment
"You can have my gun when you pry it out of my cold, dead
hands..." -----Anonymous
"Once we got their guns away from them, taking their
money was REAL easy." -----Unknown North Korean
Commissar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:27 MST