Defend your right to own a car.

[Sinfix_15]

On the bright side...... hopefully i'll be dead before entitlement society completely takes over this country.

[bu villain]

You shouldnt have the freedom to support yourself off of my work....... that is where we went wrong. "as soon as people realize they can vote themselves money, that will be the end of the republic"..... how twisted have we become that you are literally saying to me that me wanting to keep the money i work for is denying someone else their freedom. It's a real tragedy that you or anyone else actually thinks this way. "government allows us...." That's not the way it was meant to be. For too long people have been willing to trade their freedom away to big government in exchange for entitlements... now the monster may be too big to ever be put back in it's cage.

You are misinterpreting me. Take for example, your right to bear arms. It is an important freedom but it can also be used to deny others freedom. You can deny someone their right to live with it. You could also enslave someone with it and force them to support you with their work (the exact same thing you are complaining about). You can say how you think things should be but at the end of the day we have to deal with reality. Reality is that if enough people want to force you to follow their rules, you will never achieve that life you are hoping for.

What a great nation we live in..... where the majority can vote away the rights of the minority, no matter how stupid the majority is.

If you have a better system please let me know.

So when the government uses it's agencies to attack political parties that support my views, that is my government representing me? When the government pushes unconstitutional laws, that is my government representing me? Are all of my rights borrowed from the government to be taken away whenever they see fit?

The government is not one thing that represents one view. It is a conglomeration of many different views. If you don't feel your opinion is represented it's probably just because it is getting drown out by the other 300,000,000+ views. Your rights are not borrowed from the government but your rights don't always enforce themselves either.

"Government allows us to determine collectively which freedoms we want to restrict because one person's freedom can result in the denial of another's" - My disagreement here is with the term "allow". Allow assumes that the government has ownership of one's freedom of choice. That's not correct. Our government should be a management company, not a ruling entity that allows you to take actions. Our founding fathers never intended that the government would allow you to do anything, rather, they setup a government that would be a servant entity to the people. You may not have intended your statement that way, but that is something to consider in the choice of the word.

The word allow is confusing things here. A grill "allows" you to grill a steak. It doesn't give you permission. When I say the government allows us to determine our freedoms, I mean government is only a tool through which citizens can collectively decide and enforce those freedoms. It's still the citizens deciding, not the government as some separate entity. Also, freedoms may not last long if you don't have any way to enforce them. Of course governments are just as capable at taking away freedoms as it is protecting them. There is no solution to that problem that I know of. Checks and balances are the best we have.

"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." - "On Government No. I", John Webbe, published in Benjamin Franklin's paper, The Pennsylvania Gazette, April 1, 1736

Very true, but God and nature do not enforce those freedoms.

"We have freedom of religion because we collectively agree that it is a good thing" - I have to disagree. We have freedom of religion because it is a Constitutionally-protected freedom. Our fore-fathers recognized this as one of the most important reasons that the first Pilgrims came to America, and determined to make this a founding principal of this country from the beginning. "We the people" did not vote on this, or collectively agree - the founding fathers decided to collectively agree that this was an important founding principal that must be protected.

The constitution was and still is that agreement. The founding fathers were not dictators, they provided us a method to change the constitution. If enough citizens disagreed with the first amendment, it could be repealed through our constitutional process. The fact no one is trying to do that is reflective of our ongoing agreement.

A democracy is not the same as a republic. A democracy is the rule of the majority over the individual. and the majority's power is absolute and not limited. A Republic protects the minority and individuals by establishing rights that are not designed to simply be overwritten by the collective will of the majority. That does not mean that it cannot be changed, but that amendments go through the proper checks and balances first, and pass Constitutional muster.

I think some people are too caught up on the difference between a democracy and republic. The central issue in this discussion which you mention is that there is a process for the constitution to be changed. Thus there is no rule that isn't subjected to the citizens will. True, our republic requires more than 51% to change it but the core principle of collective agreement remains.

[David88vert]

The word allow is confusing things here. A grill "allows" you to grill a steak. It doesn't give you permission. When I say the government allows us to determine our freedoms, I mean government is only a tool through which citizens can collectively decide and enforce those freedoms. It's still the citizens deciding, not the government as some separate entity. Also, freedoms may not last long if you don't have any way to enforce them. Of course governments are just as capable at taking away freedoms as it is protecting them. There is no solution to that problem that I know of. Checks and balances are the best we have.

Very true, but God and nature do not enforce those freedoms.

The constitution was and still is that agreement. The founding fathers were not dictators, they provided us a method to change the constitution. If enough citizens disagreed with the first amendment, it could be repealed through our constitutional process. The fact no one is trying to do that is reflective of our ongoing agreement.

I think some people are too caught up on the difference between a democracy and republic. The central issue in this discussion which you mention is that there is a process for the constitution to be changed. Thus there is no rule that isn't subjected to the citizens will. True, our republic requires more than 51% to change it but the core principle of collective agreement remains.

I think that we share mostly the same view, but are expressing it from different viewpoints.

The process to amend the Constitution is not a simple majority vote, and was designed to be a detailed process in order to make sure that the Amendments would be at a more fundamental level than regular laws. If the people were to amend the Constitution through just a popular vote, that would be a Popular Amendment. This has never been done in the US, and is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Our current Amendment process has only been done 2 ways, of the 4 possible ways.
1) Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
2) Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
3) Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
4) Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

Right now, for an Amendment to pass, you have to have both the House and the Senate pass it by 2/3 vote each, then have it ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. It's not just a simple vote by Congress to pass an Amendment - and that is by design.

[bu villain]

I think that we share mostly the same view, but are expressing it from different viewpoints...

Yep, we both understand the details of how a constitutional amendment is passed. Sinflix seemed to imply that whatever the constitution says is more or less written in stone, can never change, and is not subject to the will of the people. That is what I was refuting. While our rights may be god given, the enforcement and collective recognition of those rights are written in the constitution and thus can change.

[BanginJimmy]

and is not subject to the will of the people.

You are wrong here. We the People do not get a vote on Constitutional Amendments.

[David88vert]

You are wrong here. We the People do not get a vote on Constitutional Amendments.

I just explained that - read again - I am not wrong. The people do not get to vote directly, that would be a Popular Amendment, which is not described as the process to amend the US Constitution. This is the same as what you are saying.
Constitutional Amendments - How is the Constitution amended?
Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

[Sinfix_15]

You are misinterpreting me. Take for example, your right to bear arms. It is an important freedom but it can also be used to deny others freedom. You can deny someone their right to live with it. You could also enslave someone with it and force them to support you with their work (the exact same thing you are complaining about). You can say how you think things should be but at the end of the day we have to deal with reality. Reality is that if enough people want to force you to follow their rules, you will never achieve that life you are hoping for.

This is probably the poorest argument i've ever seen you construct. I am highly disappointed by this. You dont legislate based off the possibility of what someone could do. The problem is that you support a system that allows the majority to prey off the minority. What if everyone voted to re-enslave black people, would you just shrug and say "oh well, that's democracy massa" . THIS SYSTEM IS THE PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! QUIT VOTING FOR IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quit voting for those who want to further expand and empower the government's ability to control your life.

If you have a better system please let me know.

I do.... quit voting for democrats.

The government is not one thing that represents one view. It is a conglomeration of many different views. If you don't feel your opinion is represented it's probably just because it is getting drown out by the other 300,000,000+ views. Your rights are not borrowed from the government but your rights don't always enforce themselves either.

It shouldnt be that way. Nothing i believe in would effect anyone else's life what so ever....... we shouldnt allow the majority to vote themselves the freedoms of the minority. Some things should not be up for vote.....

Why dont democrats just be honest? you keep saying the constitution is not set in stone and can be changed...... its plenty obvious that it's one of the main goals of Obama to see that happen..... be honest then... run on that ticket..... instead of "hope and change" run on "The constitution gets in my way, lets get rid of it"

[bu villain]

This is probably the poorest argument i've ever seen you construct. I am highly disappointed by this. You dont legislate based off the possibility of what someone could do. The problem is that you support a system that allows the majority to prey off the minority. What if everyone voted to re-enslave black people, would you just shrug and say "oh well, that's democracy massa" . THIS SYSTEM IS THE PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! QUIT VOTING FOR IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quit voting for those who want to further expand and empower the government's ability to control your life.

To be clear, the "system" is our voting system spelled out in the consititution. It is not democrats or republicans. Are you saying I shouldn't support the constitution. If everyone voted to re-enslave black people I would fight against it any way I could. You seem to think the outcome that is reached through the system is synonymous with the system itself. It is not.

I do.... quit voting for democrats.

Not voting for democrats is not a different system. It is the same system we currently have (representative democracy).

It shouldnt be that way. Nothing i believe in would effect anyone else's life what so ever....... we shouldnt allow the majority to vote themselves the freedoms of the minority. Some things should not be up for vote.....

Whether it should be or not, that is the way our process is set up. If 99/100 people want to pass a law requiring the murder of all babies, that will be the law no matter how horrible of a law it is. I agree some things shouldn't be up for a vote but I'm talking about the way things are, not the way they should be. Now if you have an idea of how to stop a large majority from getting their way, I'm all ears. And don't say stop voting for democrats because you can't stop people from voting for democrats if they want to.

Why dont democrats just be honest? you keep saying the constitution is not set in stone and can be changed...... its plenty obvious that it's one of the main goals of Obama to see that happen..... be honest then... run on that ticket..... instead of "hope and change" run on "The constitution gets in my way, lets get rid of it"

Politician honesty is a whole other topic. Also, aren't you arguing we should change the constitution so that some things can't be voted on?

[Sinfix_15]

To be clear, the "system" is our voting system spelled out in the consititution. It is not democrats or republicans. Are you saying I shouldn't support the constitution. If everyone voted to re-enslave black people I would fight against it any way I could. You seem to think the outcome that is reached through the system is synonymous with the system itself. It is not.



Not voting for democrats is not a different system. It is the same system we currently have (representative democracy).




Whether it should be or not, that is the way our process is set up. If 99/100 people want to pass a law requiring the murder of all babies, that will be the law no matter how horrible of a law it is. I agree some things shouldn't be up for a vote but I'm talking about the way things are, not the way they should be. Now if you have an idea of how to stop a large majority from getting their way, I'm all ears. And don't say stop voting for democrats because you can't stop people from voting for democrats if they want to.



Politician honesty is a whole other topic. Also, aren't you arguing we should change the constitution so that some things can't be voted on?

Democrats are not abiding by the current system. Theyre playing by their own rules while at the same time trying to tear down any rules that would prevent them from making their own rules. A vote for a democrat is a vote for a big government that answers to nobody.