Americans a broken people?

[Heafodban]

What, more moaning?

/Madsounds!

 

[mdk31]

I blame the government for doing these things and I blame the people for not stopping the government.

And a counter argument as opposed to an objection would be preferable.

Okay.

We are a broken people and always have been, for many reasons. Back in the day we allowed slavery while our declaration of independence stated that all men are born equal, if we were true to our ideals then slavery wouldn't have been possible.

At the time, blacks weren't even considered to be people by most. It doesn't make it right, but it does absolve them from total hypocrisy.

Although we're fixed the slavery problem, we have a bigger one, the government continually and illegally grows more powerful while we slowly lose many aspects our of Liberty.

In what ways is it growing "illegally" more powerful? Since the government makes the laws, after all, isn't it they who decide what's illegal?

We allow presidents to act like tyrants, arresting innocent Americans and sending them to concentration camps, and then turn those same people who probably would have been tried for treason back in the 18th century as demigods.

I assume here you're talking about FDR and the internment camps for the Japanese population during World War II. If not, do correct me. I agree that it was wrong, but how, pray tell, would what they did get him tried for treason in the past? After all, in the 18th and 19th century, American leaders were wiping out Native Americans and putting them on reservations which had not-exactly-good living conditions.

Somewhere along the line someone even hijacked the "American dream" from being free to having a lot of material wealth.

Once most of Europe turned "free", the definition changed. Definitions do that.

 

[thesneakster]

I love how its always "oh the government is causing the problem". Ever stopped to think the principles your founded on might be the problem? Rights instead of privilages etc?

 

[Heafodban]

In what ways is it growing "illegally" more powerful? Since the government makes the laws, after all, isn't it they who decide what's illegal?

No, Amendment 10 states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." In other words, if the constitution doesn't give the central government a power then it can't do it legally, that includes many things, like creating the federal reserve/taking our money off the gold standard. Which is the central government getting power over our money system. (I'm not 100% sure if by the "United States" it means the central government, but I believe it does, I could be wrong =P)

I assume here you're talking about FDR and the internment camps for the Japanese population during World War II. If not, do correct me. I agree that it was wrong, but how, pray tell, would what they did get him tried for treason in the past? After all, in the 18th and 19th century, American leaders were wiping out Native Americans and putting them on reservations which had not-exactly-good living conditions.

Not only Japanese were arrested, Germans and Italians as well. And I believe the Indians were not American citizens at the time. I am taking the concept of the illegal arrests of untried innocent Americans as something I assume the people who just threw off a "repressive" government would take strong offence to. Though yes, come to think of it you're probably right, Americans at the time were so racist and so ignorant that they'd probably be for it.

 

[Heafodban]

I love how its always "oh the government is causing the problem". Ever stopped to think the principles your founded on might be the problem? Rights instead of privilages etc?

Yes, governments are causing many of the problems, from war to genocide to theft, look through history, governments do terrible things and always have and probably always will, in the same way the German people should have kept the Nazis out of power, people all over the world should restrict their governments from having that kind of power.

And what's with "privileges"? As if the government has any moral or divine authority to bestow privileges on the population they're supposed to be serving. I can hardly believe I just read that. And even that aside, how on Earth would the idea that we as humans have rights be the problem?

 

[Archonsod]

No, Amendment 10 states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." In other words, if the constitution doesn't give the central government a power then it can't do it legally

Yes it can. It simply points out it is the representative of the people, and therefore entitled to enact those powers granted to it by the people. The only thing that article would prevent is central government enacting powers reserved to the individual states, and then only assuming the state in question had not given assent for the federal government to act on it's behalf.
If you wanted to limit the central government, you'd really need to follow that with a prohibition against the people or the states transferring reserved powers to central government. Although even that's no guarantee, since the government is under no obligation to follow the constitution.

As if the government has any moral or divine authority to bestow privileges on the population they're supposed to be serving.

The government have several thousand men under arms, tanks, aircraft, battleships and a million and one other ways of making an argument which, in practical terms, beats any possible argument you could provide for individual rights. Generally speaking, the ability to shoot someone dead has always proven something of a trump card over moral or divine authority.

 

[Heafodban]

Yes it can. It simply points out it is the representative of the people, and therefore entitled to enact those powers granted to it by the people. The only thing that article would prevent is central government enacting powers reserved to the individual states, and then only assuming the state in question had not given assent for the federal government to act on it's behalf.
If you wanted to limit the central government, you'd really need to follow that with a prohibition against the people or the states transferring reserved powers to central government. Although even that's no guarantee, since the government is under no obligation to follow the constitution.

I'm going to be honest and state that I don't understand what you're saying, so I will instead turn the subject back onto Amendment 10 where we can continue the debate from a place I believe I understand.

This is what I believe Amendment 10 means: [The powers not given to the central government by the Constitution, nor forbidden by the Constitution to the states, are reserved to the state governments respectively, or to the people.] I could be very wrong, but unless you show me my error in translating this Amendment into terms I can more easily understand, then I have to stand by my belief that it is illegal for the central government to do things not delegated to it by the constitution.

The government have several thousand men under arms, tanks, aircraft, battleships and a million and one other ways of making an argument which, in practical terms, beats any possible argument you could provide for individual rights. Generally speaking, the ability to shoot someone dead has always proven something of a trump card over moral or divine authority.

I'm not sure what argument you're making here, are you stating that because the government has more power than I do, I don't have rights?

 

[Seff]

I'm not sure what argument you're making here, are you stating that because the government has more power than I do, I don't have rights?

Rights are an idea, and in reality it's the guy with the biggest gun that decides what rights you have. You are allowed rights by those who have means to take them away from you.

 

[Lost-Lamb]

The government have several thousand men under arms, tanks, aircraft, battleships and a million and one other ways of making an argument which, in practical terms, beats any possible argument you could provide for individual rights. Generally speaking, the ability to shoot someone dead has always proven something of a trump card over moral or divine authority.

I'm not sure what argument you're making here, are you stating that because the government has more power than I do, I don't have rights?

Bingo, all rights are imaginary.

 

[Taimat396]

Basically the only right you have as far is the government is concerned is the right to bend over.

 

[Heafodban]

I see what you mean, a privilege simply being something you are allowed to do, and as the government has power over you, anything it allows you to do is a privilege. But the people hold power over the government in theory, so the government can only bestow privileges because we privilege the government with the power to privilege.

Anyways, what happened is I had the impression that the definition of privilege included some kind of authority besides the authority of power. I was arguing that the government has no moral right to bestow privileges.

 

[ash12181987]

I'm coming away with this realizing that cynicism is a right... Wholly justified mind you...

 

[Seff]

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who do not possess it."

 

[Swadius 2.0]

I was arguing that the government has no moral right to bestow privileges.

By citing the an amendment made by the government itself? Breaking it might be dishonest, but by no means does it mean that the action by itself is unethical.

 

[Heafodban]

By citing the an amendment made by the government itself? Breaking it might be dishonest, but by no means does it mean that the action by itself is unethical.

Oh, no, citing the amendment and the whole privilege thing are unrelated arguments.

 

[Taimat396]

Somewhat unrelated, but a post a page or so back made me think of it: I remember reading something that said the american constituation originally said something along the lines of 'the black man is worht 3/5 of the white man'. Is this actually true? I'd look it up, but tired, ****ty internet and lazy.

 

[Heafodban]

Somewhat unrelated, but a post a page or so back made me think of it: I remember reading something that said the american constituation originally said something along the lines of 'the black man is worht 3/5 of the white man'. Is this actually true? I'd look it up, but tired, ****ty internet and lazy.

I think what you're talking about was a law passed that* allowed for some percent of a black man to be worth a count towards the total population of the state, thereby granting that state more power in the house of representatives.

*Actually, you're right, it is a part of the constitution.

 

[italiano]

Basically the only right you have as far is the government is concerned is the right to bend over.

If it was a right, one would have a choice in the matter.

 

[Taimat396]

Point.

I suppose 'and looking happy about it' would be a right. Though they tend to call it patriotism nowadays.

 

[Sir Lulzalot]

Point.

I suppose 'and looking happy about it' would be a right. Though they tend to call it patriotism nowadays.

Patriotism today typically means accepting anything the government tells you while screaming that those who don't agree with you are evil.